Sexual Harrasment Thesis

Extending a Model of Sexual Harassment in
Organisations
by
Angela Antonatos
Thesis submitted to the University of Surrey in partial fulfilment for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
© Angela Antonatos 2003

Abstract
Despite the extensive research conducted on sexual harassment, very little work has
focused on the development of a comprehensive conceptual framework combining
antecedents and outcomes of harassment apart from that conducted by Fitzgerald and
colleagues (Fitzgerald et al.. 1997). However. this work has focused on the
antecedents of sexual harassment as a whole, setting aside the examination of

differential antecedents for the different behavioural categories of sexual harassment
(gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention and sexual coercion) although

different categories may be differentially determined, especially when considering the
variety of behaviours involved within these.
The present study aims to: (a) investigate each category of sexual harassment
separately, (b) explore what person and what organisational characteristics contribute
to each type of harassment, (c) examine differences in the dynamics behind
perpetrating and experiencing each type, (d) examine how individual responses to
harassment mediate outcomes, as well as (e) what role organisational context has in
predicting responses or outcomes of harassment, and (f) to investigate gender

differences within this framework.
Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) was used to develop models tested on a male
dominated police organisation (135 male and 125 female police officers and support
staff) in the UK in the first instance, and subsequently on a more gender balanced
academic institution (118 male and 84 female academics and support staff). Results
suggested that, for the most part, relationships generalised across organisations, such
that, male perpetrating, for both categories of harassment, was predicted by attitudes
alone, while among females gender harassment was predicted by job gender context
and attitudes, and unwanted sexual attention was predicted by agreeableness.
Experiencing harassment was a function of organisational tolerance and personality
characteristics, with different patterns emerging for males and for females. The most
consistent finding in outcome models was the negative impact of internal coping on
psychological health.
1
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Jennifer Brown for being my advisor and intellectual guide and
for her continued support over the course of this work. I would like to dedicate this
work to my father, Danny Antonatos, and my mother, Dora Antonatos. who were not
able to go to University. To my brother Mike Antonatos who is about to embark on
his own career and to Catherine Podara for her continued moral support over the
years.
3
Table of Contents
CHAPTER I 11
...............................................................................................................
INTRODUCTION 11
.....................................................................................................
1.1 INTRODUCTION 11
...................................................................................................
1.2 DIFFICULTIES ASSOCIATED WITH OBTAINING ORGANISATIONAL ACCESS IN THE
PRESENT WORK 12
.........................................................................................................
1.3 SYNOPSIS OF CHAPTERS 13

......................................................................................
CHAPTER 2 16
...............................................................................................................
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND HYPOTHESES OF CURRENT
RESEARCH 16
...............................................................................................................
2.1 INTRODUCTION 16
...................................................................................................
2.? DEFINITIONS 16
.......................................................................................................
2.3 PREVALENCE 18
......................................................................................................
2.4 PERCEPTIONS 19
......................................................................................................
2.5 OUTCOMES 20
.........................................................................................................
2.6 THEORETICAL EXPLANATIONS FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT ?2

..................................
2.7 SEXUAL HARASSMENT PROCLIVITIES AND THE PERSON/SITUATION INTERACTION
24
.................................................................................................................................
2.8 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS 26
...............................................................................
2.9 THE PROPOSED STUDY 29

........................................................................................
2.9.1 Perpetrator Model 32

........................................................ ..............................
2.9.2 Victim Model 32

...............................................................................................
2.9.3 Outcomes Model for Victims 32
......................................................................
2.10 FRAMEWORK CONCEPTS 34
...................................................................................
4
2.11 SUMMARY OF RESEARCH STRATEGY 37
.................................................................
CHAPTER 3 38
...............................................................................................................
OCCUPATIONAL CULTURE CHARACTERISTICS THAT FOSTER
SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE POLICE AND ACADEMIA 38

.......................
3.1 INTRODUCTION 38
...................................................................................................
3.2 OVERVIEW OF THE CONCEPT OF OCCUPATIONAL CULTURE 38

.................................
3.3 ASPECTS OF POLICE OCCUPATIONAL CULTURE 41

....................................................
3.4 ASPECTS OF ACADEMIC OCCUPATIONAL CULTURE 45

..............................................
3.5 COMPARING SEXUAL HARASSMENT BETWEEN A POLICE FORCE AND AN ACADEMIC
INSTITUTION 48
.............................................................................................................
CHAPTER 4 49
...............................................................................................................
METHODOLOGY 49
....................................................................................................
4.1 INTRODUCTION 49
..................................................................................................
4.2 THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE METHODOLOGIES
49
.................................................................................................................................
4.3 STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELLING 51
................................................................
4.4 Focus GROUPS 52

...................................................................................................
4.5 QUANTITATIVE METHODS UTILISED BY THE PRESENT RESEARCH 53
........................
4.5.1 Participants 53
................................................................................................
4.5.2 Missing-Data 54
..............................................................................................
4.5.3 Procedure 54
...................................................................................................
4.5.1 Measures 55
.............................................. .......................................................
4.6 QUALITATIVE METHODS UTILISED BY THE PRESENT RESEARCH 61

..........................
4.7 ET}IICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES 63

...............................
CHAPTER 5 70
...............................................................................................................
RESULTS OF STUDY ONE 70

....................................................................................
5.1 INTRODUCTION 70
...................................................................................................
5.2 ANALYSIS 71
...........................................................................................................
5.2.1 Sompl e Characteristics 71

...............................................................................
5.2.2 Scale Correlations I 81
....................................................................................
5.2.3 Analysis ofPerpetrator Model 90
...................................................................
5.2.4 Analysis of Victim Model 97
............................................................................
5.2.5 Analysis of Outcome Model 103

......................................................................
5.3 RESULTS 110

...........................................................................................................
....................................................................................

.............................................................................................
5.3.3 Outcomes Model 111

.......................................................................................
5.4 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS 112
.............................................................................
CHAPTER 6 116
.............................................................................................................
RESULTS OF STUDY TWO 116

.................................................................................
6.1 INTRODUCTION 116

.................................................................................................
6.2 ANALYSIS 117

.........................................................................................................
6.2.1 Sample Characteristics 117

.............................................................................
6.2.2 Scale Correlations' 125

...................................................................................
6.2.3 Analv'sis of Perpetrator Model 131

.................................................................
6.2.4 Aitalvsis of Victim Model 135
..........................................................................
6.2.5 Analysis of Outcome Model

..............
6.3 RESULTS 148

...........................................................................................................
6
....................................................................................

.............................................................................................
6.3.3 Outcomes Model 149
.......................................................................................
6.4 S[ ?MMARY OF KEY FINDINGS 149
.............................................................................
CHAPTER 7 152
.............................................................................................................
PROFILING TWO DISTINCT ORGANISATIONS 152

..........................................

.................................................................................................
7.2 COMPARING INCIDENCE RATES ACROSS THE TWO SAMPLES 153

..............................
7.3 COMPARING PERPETRATOR, VICTIM AND OUTCOME MODELS BETWEEN THE TWO
SAMPLES 156
.................................................................................................................
7.4 DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO SAMPLES 159

..............................
7.5 COMPARING OTHER SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS BETWEEN THE TWO
ORGANISATIONS 169
......................................................................................................
7.6 CONCLUSION 169

....................................................................................................
CHAPTER 8 172
.............................................................................................................
WHEN IS IT OK AND WHEN IS IT NOT: A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF
SEXUAL HARASSMENT WITH AN ACADEMIC SAMPLE 172

..........................

.................................................................................................
8.2 RESULTS 172

............................................................................................ ......
8.2.1 Female Focus Group 175

................................................................................
8.2.2 Male Focus Group 182
....................................................................................
8.3 CONCLUSION 188

....................................................................................................
CHAPTER 9 189
.............................................................................................................
CONCLUSION 189
........................................................................................................
7
9.1 INTRODUCTION
................................................................................................. 189
9.2 MAIN FINDINGS

................................................................................................ 189
9.2.1. Perpetrator models .................................................................................. 189
9.2.2 Victim models 193

..........
9.2.3 Outcome models 197

.......................................................................................
9.3 IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY 201
..............................................................................
9.4.1 LIMITATIONS OF THE PRESENT RESEARCH 203

......................................................
9.4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 206

................................................
9.6 CONCLUDING COMMENTS 211

.................................................................................
REFERENCES 213
........................................................................................................
Tables
Table 1:Police organisation participants 53

..................................................................................
Table 2: University organisation participants .......................................................................... 54
.
Table 3: Pattern Matrix for principal components analysis of perpetrator items 59
.................... .
Table 4: Communalities for items in principal components analysis 60
...................................... .
Table 5 :Male Group Participants 62
........................................................................................... .
Table 6: Female Group Participants 62
........................................................................................ .
Table 7: Length of service by staff category by gender 72
.......................................................... .
Table 8: Support staff grade by gender 73
................................................................................... .
Table 9: Police officer rank by gender 73
................................................................................... .
Table 10:Percentages of behaviour perpetrated: All sample 74
.................................................. .
Table 1 1:Percentages of behaviour experienced: All sample 75
................................................. .
Table 12:Percentages of behaviour perpetrated at least once by gender and staff category... 76
.
Table 13:Percentages of behaviour experienced at least once by gender and staff category. 77
.
Table 14:Percentages of coping strategies utilised by gender and staff category 78
................... .
Table 15:Means, Standard Deviations and Coefficient Alphas for Male Police 79
.................... .
Table 16:Means, Standard Deviations and Coefficient Alphas for Female Police 80
................ .
Table 17 Scale Correlations for the Male Police Sample 88
....................................................... .
Table 18 Scale Correlations for the Female Police Sample 89
.................................................. .
Table 19:Specification Search Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Male Police Perpetrator 93
.............
Table 20: Specification Search Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Female Police Perpetrator 94
.........
Table 21: Specification Search Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Male Police Victim 99
.................. .
Table 22: Specification Search Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Female Police Victim 99
................
Table 23: Specification Search Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Male Police Outcomes 106
............
Table 24: Specification Search Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Female Police Outcomes......... 106
Table 25: Percentages of behaviour perpetrated: All sample 118
.................................................
Table 26: Percentages of behaviour experienced: All sample 119
................................................
Table 27: Percentacresof behaviour perpetrated at least once by gender and staff category.. 120
R
Table 28: Percentages of behaviour experienced at least once by 121
gender and staff category
Table 29: Percentages of coping strategies utilised by gender 122
and staff category
Table 30: Means, Standard Deviations and Coefficient Alphas for Academic Male ..................
123
Table 31: Means, Standard Deviations and Coefficient Alphas for Female Academic .............
1-4
Table 32: Scale correlations for the male academic sample .........
.................................................. 129
Table 33: Scale correlations for the female academic sample 130
Table 34: Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Male Academic Victim ...............................................
136
Table 35: Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Female Academic Victim .............................................
139
Table 36: Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Male Academic Outcomes ..........................................
142
Table 37: Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Female Academic Outcomes ........................................
145
Table .....................................
38: Behaviour experienced: comparison between police and university 154
Table 39: Perpetrating behaviour: comparison between police and university ......................
155
......................
Figures
Figure 1: The Fitzgerald model of sexual harassment 27

............................................................ .
Figure 2: Proposed conceptual framework 31
............................................................................. .
Figure 3: Map of proposed framework concepts 36
.................................................................... .
Figure 4: Perpetrator model ................................................................................................... 91
.
Figure 5: Police male perpetrator model .............................................................................. 95
..
Figure 6: Police female perpetrator model 95
..............................................................................
Figure 6: Police female perpetrator model 96
..............................................................................
Figure 7: Victim model ........................................................................................................... 98
Figure 8: Police male victim model ....................................................................................... 101
Figure 9: Police female victim model 102
....................................................................................
Figure l 0: Outcome model 104
.....................................................................................................
Figure 11: Police male outcomes model 108
...............................................................................
Figure 12: Police female outcomes model 108
............................................................................
Figure 12: Police female outcomes model 109
............................................................................
Figure 13: Academic male perpetrator model 132
.......................................................................
Figure 14: Academic female perpetrator model 134
....................................................................
Figure 15: Academic male victim model 137
.............................................................................
Figure 16: Academic female victim model 140
...........................................................................
Figure 17: Academic male outcome model 143
...........................................................................
Figure 18: Academic female outcome model 146
........................................................................
Figure 19: Male Perpetrator Models (top police/bottom academic) 191
......................................
Figure 20: Female Perpetrator Models (top police/bottom academic) 192
................................
Figure 21: Male Victim models (top police/bottom academic) 195
............................................
Figure 22: Female Victim Models (top police/bottom academic) 196
.........................................
Figure 23: Male Outcome Models (top police/bottom academic) 199
........................................
Figure 24: Female Outcomes Models (top police/bottom academic) 200
....................................
()
Appendices
Appendix A 227
Table 40: T-tests by gender for police

.........................................................................................
Table 41: Police sample means by gender
...................................................................................
Table 42: T-tests by gender for university sample
......................................................................
Table 43: University sample means by gender
............................................................................
Table 44: ANOVAs by age group for male police sample
..........................................................
Table 45: ANOVAs by age group for female police sample
.......................................................
Table 46: ANOVAs by age for male university sample
..............................................................
Table 47: ANOVAs by age for female university sample
...........................................................
Table 48: T-Tests by staff category for male police sample
.......................................................
Table 49: T-tests by staff category for female police sample
......................................................
Table 50: T-tests by staff category for male university sample
...................................................
Table 5 1: T-tests by staff category for male university sample
...................................................
Table 52: ANOVAs by front line category for male police sample
Table 53: ANOVAs by front line category for female police sample
Table 54: Length of service by staff category by gender
............................................................
Table 55: ANOVAs by length of service for male police sample
Table 56: ANOVAs by length of service for female police sample
Table 57: Police officer rank by gender
......................................................................................
Table 58: Support staff grade by gender
.....................................................................................
Table 59: ANOVA table for male support by gender
..................................................................
Table 60: ANOVA table for male police rank
.............................................................................
Table 61: ANOVA table for female support grade
.....................................................................
Table 62: ANOVA table for female police rank
.........................................................................
Appendix B 239
Police information sheet
Police questionnaire
Appendix C 251
University information sheet
University questionnaire
I0
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Sexual harassment was first documented in 1908 (Fitzgerald, et. al., 1988). However,
it was not until the 1970s when it was recognised to be a problem, labelled and the
first research in the area emerged (Farley, 1978; MacKinnon, 1979). Initial work
focused on defining concepts and documenting their prevalence and frequency.
Researchers later began to investigate how men and women perceive concepts
differently, how women cope with any adverse reactions, the antecedents of the
behaviour and its consequences. However despite the extensive research conducted,
relatively little work has focused on the development of a comprehensive conceptual

framework combining antecedents and consequences of harassment, with the notable
exception of Fitzgerald and colleagues (Fitzgerald et. al., 1997).
According to Fitzgerald's group, organisational climate and job gender context are
identified as the antecedents to the harassment, which in turn have negative
consequences for the organisation, (organisational withdrawal and lowered job
satisfaction) as well as for the victim's physical and psychological health.
Organisational climate describes tolerance of sexual harassment (Naylor, Pritchard, &
Illgen, 1980), while job gender context refers to the organisation's gender ratio
(Gutek, Cohen, & Konrad, 1990), and to the actual job itself being more masculine,
feminine, or neutral (for example the job of an engineer is traditionally held by men,
and the job of a nurse is traditionally held by women). However, Fitzgerald and
colleagues have focused on the antecedents of sexual harassment as a whole, setting
aside the examination of differential antecedents for the three different behavioural
categories of sexual harassment (gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention and
11
sexual coercion) although it is possible that different categories are differentially
determined, especially when considering the variety of behaviours involved within
these and their possible difference in severity.
The task of the present thesis is to extend the Fitzgerald model by investigating each
behavioural category of sexual harassment separately, while also exploring the
contribution of individual differences suggested (Pryor, 1987; Pryor, Giedd &

Williams, 1995; Pryor, LaVite & Stoller 1993) in addition to organisational
predictors, and examining the relationship between organisational context and
outcomes as well as how responses to harassment mediate outcomes (Fitzgerald &
Ormerod, 1993).
Hence this research aims to answer the following questions: (a) is each behavioural
category of sexual harassment determined differentially? (b) if so, what person and
what organisational characteristics contribute to each type of harassment individually?
(c) what are the differences in the dynamics behind perpetrating and experiencing
each type of harassment? (d) for (a), (b) and (c) are there differences between males
and females? (e) how does the individual's response to harassment mediate outcomes
and (f) does organisational tolerance have a role in predicting responses or outcomes
of harassment?
Sexual harassment in relation to the above processes will be examined in two distinct
dominated police organisation; and a gender balanced
working environments: a male
university organisation. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) statistical techniques
will be utilised for the development of quantitative models that will explore these
be followed by some qualitative work in the form of focus

processes, and this will
in to elaborate on the meaning of definitional issues that can be
groups order
submersed in a purely quantitative approach.
1.2 Difficulties associated with obtaining organisational access in the present
work
Sexual harassment is a sensitive topic and associated with ethical considerations.
According to Lee (1993: 4) sensitive topics include areas that are private, sacred,
stressful, or that have the potential to expose information that is "stigmatising or

12
incriminating". Relating this to organisations, it is not difficult to understand why they
might resist participation in research that could have the potential to expose sexual
harassment and its health, legal and media consequences.
This was exactly the difficulty faced by the present researcher in obtaining access to
organisations to conduct the research. The process of negotiating access (described in
more detail in the method chapter) was very lengthy, approximately one year before
access was granted to the police organisation and about six months before access was
granted to the university organisation. The purpose of the present research was not to
identify specific instances of harassment; instead the aim was the development of
theory by way of a conceptual framework examining relationships among variables
such as antecedents, outcomes and mediating variables. Assurances were given to this
end, and demographic questions were limited to the most basic possible to reassure
both the organisation and individual participants of confidentiality and anonymity.
Thus information such as breakdowns by departments, divisions and other
demographics were limited.
1.3 Synopsis of chapters
Below is a brief summary of what will be covered in the chapters that follow:
Chapter 2: This chapter describes the various theoretical explanations for sexual
harassment in the research literature. An exposition of the rationale underpinning the
present research is provided. The derivation and specification of hypotheses are

described. It also includes legal and psychological definitions for sexual harassment
and categories of this, as well as brief sections on prevalence, perceptions and
outcomes.
Chapter 3: Here occupational culture characteristics that foster or inhibit sexual
harassment in the police and academia are described, such as the male dominated
gender ratio, masculine culture and negative attitudes towards women in the police
force, as well as the more gender balanced and intellectual nature of academic
institutions. Also the rationale for choosing two such distinct organisations is
explained as well as the implications of finding sustainable results across these. These
13
issues are also important when considering possible interventions
to reduce. prevent
or eliminate sexual harassment.
Chapter 4: This chapter describes methodological

and analytic issues relevant to the
present study. The chapter discusses (a) the use of Structural Equation Modelling
(SEM) statistical techniques and (b) some qualitative work in the form
of focus group
discussions. Here SEM and focus group procedures,
as well as the rationale for
utilising these are discussed. A detailed description of the quantitative and qualitative
methods utilised is given. Also ethical considerations regarding participants and

organisations are discussed followed by more discussion on methodological issues
regarding the quantitative and qualitative approaches.
Chapter 5: This chapter describes the first empirical study of the thesis. This is an
exploratory study involving the development of models for perpetrators, victims and
outcomes of sexual harassment using SEM techniques. Data were generated from
male and female police officers and support staff of a British police force. There
follows a testing of the model by means of SEM.
Chapter 6: Chapter 6 describes the second study. This is a confirmatory study where
the SEM models developed in the police organisation were tested on male and female
academics and support staff of a university organisation. The objective here is to see
if the relationships found in the police sample could generalise to a different
organisation that was more gender balanced.
Chapter 7: This chapter compares and contrasts the results of the two quantitative
studies conducted with a police organisation (chapter 5) and an academic institution

(chapter 6) respectively. Differences in incidence rates, as well as among
demographic and other sample characteristics between the two samples are explored
to see whether they can provide alternative explanations to the SEM models.
Chapter 8: Chapter 8 describes the results of study three. This used a qualitative
approach. Focus group discussions were conducted with two separate groups, one
male and one female, from the university organisation. The purpose of this study was
to further explore the meaning of concepts from the quantitative approach.
14
Chapter 9: This concluding chapter describes a) the findings of the present research,
b) implications for theory, c) implications for method, including, limitations and
suggestions for future harassment research, and d) implications for practice.
I5
CHAPTER 2
THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND
HYPOTHESES OF CURRENT RESEARCH
2.1 Introduction
The present chapter describes the various theoretical explanations for sexual
harassment found. It opens with a discussion of legal and psychological definitions
and prevalence rates. Differences in perceptions concerning sexual harassment are

then described. The issue of gender differences in definitions is raised. There follows
an account of outcomes. The key model in this area is that by Fitzgerald and
colleagues. This is presented and the limitations to the model discussed. The work of
Pryor is critical to the development and elaboration of Fitzgerald's model and this is
described. Finally the conceptual model for the present thesis is given.
2.2 Definitions
Sexual harassment is considered both a legal as well as a psychological phenomenon
(Fitzgerald, 1990). One widely used definition of sexual harassment is the legal
definition provided from the United States Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) according to which: "Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for
sexual favours, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute
sexual harassment when (a) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or
implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment, (b) submission to or
rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment
decisions affecting such an individual, or (c) such conduct has the purpose or effect of
unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an

intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment" (Equal Employment
Opportunity Guidelines, 1980).
16
According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC, 1980)
there
are two legal categories of sexual harassment: a) Hostile Environment and b) Quid
pro Quo. Hostile environment involves unwanted actions of a sexual nature, with the
"purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's
work performance
or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment" (EEOC, 1980:
74677). The interpretation of hostile environment can be quite
ambiguous and legal
criteria for establishing this include: (a) the harassment must be unwelcome by the
plaintiff; (b) the harassment must be based on gender; (c) the harassment must be
sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an abusive work environment (d) the

harassment must have affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment;
and (e)
the employer must have active or constructive knowledge of the sexually hostile
working environment and take no prompt or adequate remedial action (although there
is no complete uniform rule on when employers can be liable) [Bennet-Alexander and
Pincus, (1995), cited in Lengnick-Hall (1995)]. Most debate on labelling behaviours
as sexual harassment concerns hostile environment behaviours. Quid pro Quo

involves the use of bribery and work-related benefits or threat to achieve sexual
favours.
Fitzgerald and colleagues (Fitzgerald, Gelfand, & Drasgow, 1995; Fitzgerald &
Hesson-Mclnnins, 1989) have identified three psychological dimensions to sexual
harassment a) gender harassment b) unwanted sexual attention c) sexual coercion.
Gender harassiilent involves behaviours such as graffiti, pin-ups, suggestive stories
and jokes, offensive sexual remarks, sexist remarks etc. Unwanted sexual attention
involves unwanted attempts to draw someone into a discussion of personal or sexual
matters, unwanted touching, unwanted repeated requests for dates, staring, and
unwanted attempts to have sex with someone that result in that person pleading or
struggling. Sexual coercion occurs when the perpetrator requests sexual activity from
the victim in exchange for various workplace benefits. This is the most "obvious" and
consequently the most recognised form of sexual harassment.
As human experiences do not always meet legal criteria (Fitzgerald, Swan, and
Fischer, 1995) the present research undertakes a psychological exploration of sexual
harassment. Thus the present work focused on the psychological definitions of sexual
17
harassment as developed by Fitzgerald and colleagues (Fitzgerald, Gelfand, &
Drasgow, 1995, Fitzgerald & Hesson-Mclnnins, 1989).
The United States Merit Systems Protection Board (1981,1987) has developed the
most widely used classification system for harassing behaviours according to their
severity where behaviours may fall under three categories with respect to how sel'cre
these may be: less severe, moderately severe and most severe. Less severe harassment
includes unwelcome sexual remarks, suggestive looks and gestures, and deliberate
touching. Moderately severe behaviours include pressure for dates, pressure for sexual
favours, unwelcome letters and telephone calls. Most severe harassment includes
actual or attempted rape or sexual assault.
2.3 Prevalence
Documenting the prevalence of sexual harassment has been one of the first research
efforts made in the area. Approximately 50 % of women at school and in the
workplace are somehow affected by sexual harassment (Fitzgerald, et. al., 1988;
Fitzgerald & Ormerod, 1993). According to a large scale survey of 13,200 male and
female Federal Government workers in the United States 44 % of women and 19% of
men (USMSPB, 1994) reported experiencing some form of sexual harassment within
the last two years, while studies conducted in Europe have found similar incidence
rates (Mezey & Rubenstein, 1991). McKinney (1990) in a study of academic faculty
found that 14 % of both male and female faculty members reported sexual harassment
by other members of faculty, and another 20 % reported being sexually harassed by
students. Also Grauerholz (1989) found that 48 % of women academic faculty
reported experiencing sexual harassment from a student (contra power sexual

harassment). In a study of workplace bullying conducted across a range of private,
public and voluntary sectors in the UK, Hoel and Cooper (2000) reported the
following percentages of people that reported being bullied in the last five years: 24.9
% of people surveyed in NHS trusts, 27.1 % of people in the post and
telecommunications industry, 25.5 % of civil servants, 21.1 % of people in higher
education, 35.4 % of people in teaching, 21.4 % of people in Local Authorities, 22.2
% of people in manufacturing and engineering, 17.8 % of people in pharmaceuticals,
16.6 % of people in the hotel industry, 17.5 % of people in retail, 24.0 % of people in
banking, 24.7 % of people in the volunteer sector, 28.2 % of people in the dance
18
industry, 29 % of people in the police service, 19.8 % of people in the fire service,
and finally 31.6 % of people in prison
Prevalence rates also seem to be highest in non-traditional organisations where either
women or men have been traditionally under-represented (Baker, 1989: Gutek, 1985).
Brown, Campbell and Fife-Schaw (1995) reported that over 90 % of policewomen
serving in England and Wales indicated that they work in an ambient sexually
harassing environment. Seventy per cent had had offensive sexualised remarks
addressed to them personally, 53 % were subjected to persistent requests for
unwanted dates, and 6% had experienced a serious sexual assault perpetrated by a
work colleague. Similarly high rates have been reported in the military following a
study conducted by the 1988 United States Department of Defence (DoD) which
reported that 64 % of military women and 17 % of military men indicated they had
form of sexual harassment on the job (Martindale, 1990). Also

experienced some
Duldt (1982) conducted a study of sexual harassment among nurses where 60 % of
these indicated they had experienced sexual harassment.
2.4 Perceptions
More severe behaviours are more likely to be perceived by both men and women as
harassment. Across studies, the disagreement between genders on which

sexual
behaviours constitute harassment vary from 0% to 100% (Frazier et. al., 1995). Some
has found that women were significantly more likely than men to label
of the research
behaviours harassment (e. g., Fitzgerald & Ormerod, 1991; Jones &
certain as
Remland, 1992). Other studies have found very few differences (e. g., Baker, Terpstra,
& Cutler, 1990; Bursik, 1992; Pryor, 1985). Most differences concern more
behaviours For example, Fitzgerald and Ormerod (1991)

ambiguous and situations.
found that women were more likely than men to consider less severe behaviours,
including pressure for dates and gender harassment (e. g., graffiti, pin-ups, sexist and
sexual remarks) as sexual harassment.
In addition to gender differences, harasser status also effects perceptions of
harassment. In particular, behaviours engaged in by professors are seen as more

in by (Bursik, 1992; Lester et. al., 1986;
harassing than behaviours engaged students
Pryor, 1985; Pryor & Day, 1988; Reilly et. al., 1982). Also, 9 out of 10 behaviours are
19
seen by students (undergraduates) as more harassing if engaged by supervisors rather
than co-workers (Popovich et. al.. 1986, cited in Frazier et. al., 1995).
2.5 Outcomes
Organisational outcomes
Sexual harassment has been documented to have serious consequences to
organisations. According to the United States Merit Systems Protection Board

(USMSPB, 1988) 13 % of male and female victims of sexual harassment said they
had used sick leave resulting in higher rates of absenteeism. The USMSPB (1988)
estimated the cost of sick leave between 1985 to 1987 to be 26.1 million dollars and
the cost of emotional stress to be 5 million dollars. Work productivity was also found
to decline as a result of sexual harassment in the same study and job satisfaction is
also negatively affected (Baker, 1989; Bandy, 1989; Gruber, 1992; Gutek & Koss,
1993). Gutek and Koss (1993) have documented decreased motivation to work,
transferring, getting fired and even quitting a particular job and possibly undertaking a
new lower paid one (also documented by Coles, 1986; Gutek, 1985; USMSPB, 1981,
1987,1994). Finally, the research literature points to negative affects on interpersonal
relationships at the job such as establishing friendships and alliances with co-workers
which deprives employees of the potential to advance to higher positions in their
organisation (Culbertson, et. al., 1992; Gutek, 1985; Gutek & Koss, 1993).
Physical health outcomes
Physical health outcomes include the following: nervousness, crying spells, inability
to sleep, loss of appetite, nausea, binge-eating, weight loss, headaches, gastrointestinal
symptoms, jaw tightness, teeth grinding and fatigue (Gutek & Koss, 1993). Crull
(1980) reported that 63 % of women that wrote to the Working Women's Institute
Information, Referral, and Counselling Service in the United States as a result of
experiencing sexual harassment indicated symptoms of physical stress.
hological outcomes
Psychological
Sexual harassment has also been associated with numerous psychological detriments.
The American Psychiatric Association has classified sexual harassment as a "severe
stressor" (APA, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 11,3d edition
1987). Gutek and Koss (1993) have found that victims suffer from fear, anger, a sense
-10
of vulnerability and helplessness, anxiety, irritability, depression, alienation and
humiliation. Silverman (1976) reported that female victims of sexual harassment
tended to blame themselves, with 27 % of her sample indicating that they felt guilty
and helpless, 23 % indicating they felt scared, 48 % indicating they felt alone, and 78
% indicating they were angry. Gruber and Bjorn (1982) documented victims
suffering
from low self-esteem and overall life satisfaction, while Kilpatrick (1992) has found
links of sexual harassment with posttraumatic stress disorder and depression.
Responses to sexual harassment
Fitzgerald and colleagues (Fitzgerald, Gold, Brock, and Gelfand, 1995) divided
women's coping responses to sexual harassment into internal and external coping
responses. Internal coping responses attempt to manage the cognitions and emotions
associated with experiencing sexual harassment, and involve denial and convincing
oneself that what happened was not important, putting up with the behaviour etc.
External coping strategies are more problem solving in nature and involve confronting
the harasser, seeking social support or support from the organisation etc. These
strategies proposed by Fitzgerald and colleagues are parallel to the emotion-focused
and problem-focused general coping strategies proposed by Lazarus and Folkman
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Folkman & Lazarus, 1989).
The research literature suggests that women in general respond to sexual harassment
with non-assertive behaviour and that only a minority utilises assertive responses to
the harassment. According to Gruber (1989) avoidance behaviour such as avoiding
the harasser and ignoring incidents of harassment is one of the most frequently used
responses to sexual harassment by women. Large-scale research on sexual harassment
among government workers conducted by the United States Merit Systems Protection
Board (USMSPB, 1981,1988) revealed that many women coped with harassment by
making a joke about it in an effort to try and minimise what happened to them. When
women do actually turn somewhere to discuss the harassment, they usually go to a
friend for support rather than to the organisation (Gruber & Bjorn, 1982; USMSPB,
1981; 1988). External coping strategies have in fact been found to make things worse
for victims overall, resulting in retaliation (Culbertson, et. al., 1992; Hesson-McInnis
& Fitzgerald, 1997; Loy & Stewart, 1984). Finally, as reported by agencies dealing
complaints (Coles, 1986) and federal government workers (USMSPB, 1988),

with
,I
women that do actually report harassment are often forced to quit their jobs. In fact
Terpstra and Cook (1985) reported that 65 G7cof sexual harassment
charges they
investigated involved job discharge.
2.6 "Theoretical explanations for sexual harassment

Stockdale (1996: 10) describes three separate but overlapping frameworks
under
which a number of theoretical explanations for sexual harassment fall. These include:
sex-role spillover, the role(s) of power and dominance and the role of sexual arousal,
a variant of what other researchers (Stohr & Beck, 1994; Tangri, Burt & Johnson,
1982) refer to as the "biological model".
The sex-role spillover (Conrad & Gutek, 1986; Gutek, 1985; Gutek & Dunwoody,
1987; Gutek & Morasch, 1982) suggests that when the sex-ratio of an organisation is
skewed (the organisation is either male or female dominated) the sex role of the
dominant gender "spills over" the work role expectations of the job. According to
Gutek, sexual harassment is more likely to occur in such occupations, although the
form of the harassment and the reactions of the victims will depend on which sex is
dominant in the organisation.
The research literature (Fain & Anderton, 1987; Gruber & Bjorn, 1986; Terpstra,
1989) generally describes targets of sexual harassment as being mostly female, young,
single, and having lower personal power and status at work Thus power is considered
by many as having a significant role in the occurrence of sexual harassment. The
power and dominance model suggests that sexual harassment is one way in which
men maintain dominance over women at work and in society in general (Brownmiller,
1975; Fitzgerald, 1992; MacKinnon; 1979). In particular, Tangri, Burt and Johnson
(1982) said that sexual harassment could be the result of two types of power, that
which derives from gender as well as that that is related to workplace infrastructure.
According to Stockdale (1996: 11) people who have strong needs to control others
coupled with hostile attitudes towards women have been documented by many
researchers (Koss et. al., 1985; Malamuth, 1986) as being more likely to perpetrate
sexual violence in general. She also cites Kipnis (1990) who found that people with
disproportionate power over other individuals tend to perceive others as having little
worth and deserving mistreatment.

Within the power perspective, Lafontaine and Tredeau (1986)
also described sexual
harassment as being the result of patriarchy, where maleness is
valued far and above
femaleness and where sexual and economic power ought to be
given to the male role.
According to the feminist analysis of sexual harassment, (Fitzgerald & Ormerod,
1993; MacKinnon, 1979) it is about "doing power", and about hostility, status,
maintaining masculinity and masculine domination, misogyny, gender identity and
power antagonisms, erosion and control of female aspirations (especially in non-
traditional, male dominated environments) ensuring that women remain subordinate
to men, and dominance of women through heterosexuality. Fiske and Glick (1995) in
fact, suggest that paternalism, heterosexuality and gender differentiation have created
stereotyped views of women in general and of women and their jobs that combined
with ambivalent motives (i. e. negative motives of dominance or positive motives of
intimacy), result in sexual harassment. However, in general, although the power and
dominance model attempts to explain why men harass women, it is limited by the fact
that it does not explain why women harass men, nor does it differentiate between the
various categories of sexual harassment (gender harassment, unwanted sexual
attention and sexual coercion) that vary considerably amongst each other.
A number of theoretical explanations for sexual harassment revolve around the role of
sexual arousal, a variant of what other researchers (Stohr & Beck, 1994; Tangri, Burt
& Johnson, 1982) refer to as the "biological model" according to which sexually
harassing behaviours are the result of natural attraction that can be misunderstood.
Regan (1997) suggested that harassment could be the result of sexual
miscommunication, whereby the degree of resistance to sexual initiation, male sexual
request style and the like, are associated with poorly co-ordinated interactions
between the sexes. Brewer (1982) also thought that instead of representing male
sexual violence, sexual harassment could be the result of clumsy or insensitive
expressions of attraction. However a biological explanation like this that attempts to
explain sexual harassment as the result of natural attraction does not provide an
adequate explanatory framework that distinguishes people likely to harass from
people that don't, nor does it explain why men in general are more likely to sexually
harass than women (Terpstra & Baker, 1986).
23
In addition, Pryor and Stoller (1994)
suggested that men high in the likelihood to
sexually harass associate sexuality with social dominance. In fact Bargh
and his
colleagues (Bargh & Raymond, 1995; Bargh, Raymond, Pryor. & Strack, 1995)
went
even further to suggest that for men high in the likelihood to sexually harass, the
association between power and sex is non-conscious and automatic. Using power
manipulations, Bargh and his colleagues found that men scoring high in the likelihood
to harass, when primed with power stimuli, provided higher ratings of attraction to
women in comparison to men low in the propensity to harass that were not as affected
by the power stimuli. Again this approach was focused on
male perpetrating only and
treats sexual harassment as one uniform behaviour, although it fact comprises of more
than one categories of behaviour (gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention and
sexual coercion) as discussed earlier.
2.7 Sexual harassment proclivities and the person/situation interaction

Some of the most systematic work on perpetrators of sexual harassment in the
research literature was that conducted by Pryor and colleagues (Pryor, 1987; Pryor et
al., 1993; Pryor, Giedd & Williams, 1995). Pryor (1987) developed a measure called
the "Likelihood to Sexually Harass" (LSH) scale, which assessed, for the first time,
sexual harassment proclivities in males. In addition, Pryor and colleagues (Pryor et
al., 1993) examined sexual harassment within a person/situation framework that views
sexual harassment as the result of an interaction between personal and situational

characteristics.
The "Likelihood to Sexually Harass" (LSH) scale (Pryor, 1987) was based on a
technique that measures rape proclivities (Malamuth, 1981). This involves the use of
ten hypothetical scenarios where, in each scenario, respondents were asked to imagine
themselves in a role of power (such as professor/student, executive/secretarial
applicant etc. ) over a female target. After each scenario a list of possible courses of
action were provided (one of these, describing a male using his power to get sexual
favours from his subordinate female), and participants were asked to indicate which
action they would chose, while imagining that no negative consequence would follow
regardless of their hypothetical choice. Finally respondents were asked to indicate

how likely they were to carry out each behaviour on a 1-5 scale (where "1" was not at
all l kehv and "5" was very likely). This instrument correlated with measures of
24
adversarial sexual beliefs, as well as likelihood to rape and rape myth acceptance
among others.
Pryor and his colleagues (Pryor, Giedd & Williams, 1995; Pryor. LaVite & Stoller
1993) also suggest that sexual harassment is more likely to occur when individuals
with a proclivityfor sexual harassment are placed in situations that permit such
behaviour. Thus he interprets sexual harassment as a person/situation interaction. In
particular, according to Pryor et al., men who score high on the LSH, indicating a
high proclivity to sexually harass, perform more sexually harassing behaviours, where
the local norms are more permitting of such behaviour, than men that score low on the
LSH. For instance, Pryor et al. conducted an experiment where high and low LSH
men were asked to train a new female secretary on the computer after which they
were told that they would be to

asked rate the female (who was a confederate) as a job
candidate (so that the male perceives himself as having some sense of power over the
female in the experiment). A male postgraduate student was used as a role model
introducing the male trainer to his trainee. This role model acted in a harassing
manner towards the female trainee in one experimental condition, and in the other
condition he acted in a professional and non-harassing manner. Results indicated that
under the harassing role model condition, men who scored high on the LSH
performed more sexually harassing behaviours towards the female trainee than men
scoring low on the LSH.
However, it should be noted that as Pryor and colleagues (Pryor, Giedd &Williams,
1995) indicated themselves, the LSH measures proclivity to perpetrate quid pro quo
sexual harassment alone, to the exclusion of gender harassment and unwanted sexual
attention and perhaps these latter forms of harassment are related to different
dispositions than those associated with the LSH. Pryor et al. further suggest that
sexual harassment is the result not only of individual factors but rather an interaction
between the person and the situation thus it is also possible the situational factors that
lead to gender harassment and unwanted sexual attention are different to those that
lead to quid pro quo. In addition, the LSH is based on scenarios, that is, hypothetical
situations that respondents are asked to imagine themselves in and this comes with
obvious limitations with reference to generalisibility and validity. Finally the above-
mentioned research conducted by Pryor and colleagues was based on findings with
i5
undergraduate student samples that again comes with considerable methodological
limitations.
2.8 Conceptual frameworks

Very little work has focused on the development of a comprehensive conceptual
framework combining antecedents and outcomes of harassment apart from that
conducted by Fitzgerald and colleagues (Fitzgerald et al., 1997). According to this
model, organisational context and job gender context predict sexual harassment.
Organisational context (Naylor, Pritchard, & Ilgen, 1980) refers to a given
organisation's tolerance for sexual harassment. Job gender context refers among
others to the organisation being traditionally male dominated, female dominated or
neutral, to the ratio of male and female employees as well as to the sex of a given
employee's immediate supervisor (Gutek, Cohen, & Conrad, 1990). In turn sexual
harassment has negative consequences on the victim's job satisfaction, health
conditions (i. e. headaches, sleep disturbance, etc. ) and psychological conditions (i. e.
anxiety, depression, etc). Job satisfaction predicted work withdrawal (such as
absenteeism, although remaining at work) and job withdrawal (such as quitting job
altogether). Health conditions predicted health satisfaction, which, in turn predicted
work withdrawal and job withdrawal. Also psychological conditions predicted health
conditions. Finally job stress was used as a control variable to compare its effects on
outcomes against those of sexual harassment. A diagram of this model is available at
Figure 1.
26
. i, ,4
0
ä'.
0
4)
'yam
s Cs
,,
0 C) 1T'
C
0
Cif
X a)
C
c aý
I
(ID
0
ctt
sý
aý
(ID
4-'
X O
a
y
a)
Ü ö O
c
O 4)
-a
4 _ bG
N
"C
C)
o
0
bJ0
G=.
ý r,
Glomb et al., (1999) conducted a longitudinal test of the Fitzgerald (1997)
model
documenting not only the negative consequences of the harassment
as proposed by
Fitzgerald and colleagues, but also demonstrating their duration, as they found that
job and psychological outcomes at Time 2 (the second study conducted by the
authors
in 1996) were related to sexual harassment that occurred at Time 1 (the first
study
conducted by the authors in 1994). Their results confirmed that negative
consequences of harassment can be made worse by more harassment in the future and
that experiencing harassment has the effect of changing a woman's perception of her
organisation's tolerance for harassment. It should be noted, that this study, which was
conducted with female university staff, also demonstrated that it was possible for the
Fitzgerald et al model, originally tested on a private utility company, to generalise
onto other organisations as well. In fact Fitzgerald, Drasgow and Magley (1999)
tested the model on 28,000 military personnel and their results demonstrated that their
framework of antecedents and outcomes could generalise to military as well as
civilian populations. This study conducted by Fitzgerald et al in the military was also
significant in that it also showed that their integrated framework could generalise to
men as well as women, as the model was conducted with female and male military
personnel. Finally, Wasti and colleagues (Wasti et al., 2000) tested the cross-cultural
gcneralisability of the Fitzgerald et al. model and found that, for the most part, it
could also generalise to a sample of Turkish women. In particular, in the Turkish
sample, organisational climate and job gender context both predicted sexual
harassment as expected. In turn, sexual harassment predicted health conditions and
psychological outcomes, yet (contrary to expectation) sexual harassment did not
predict job satisfaction for the Turkish sample and health satisfaction was not related
to job withdrawal.
However, the model proposed by Fitzgerald focuses on the antecedents of sexual
harassment as a whole and has set aside an examination of differential antecedents for
the three different behavioural categories of harassment (gender harassment,
unwanted sexual attention and sexual coercion). Yet it is probable that each type of
harassment is differentially determined, especially when considering the variety of
behaviours involved within types and the possible difference in severity among these.
In addition, the Fitzgerald model (Fitzgerald, et al., 1997) examined job gender
context and organisational tolerance towards sexual harassment as potential

28
antecedents of this, which are both organisational factors, but has not taken into
account person characteristics as probable predictors. Again, as the work of Pryor and
his colleagues (Pryor, 1987; Pryor, Giedd & Williams, 1995; Pryor, LaVite & Stoller
1993) suggest, considering the diversity of behaviours involved within sexual

harassment, the characteristics of the person may have a significant
role in the
illumination of the dynamics of this that involves, after all, human behaviour. In
addition, as the person/situation framework introduced by Pryor (Pryor, Giedd &

Williams, 1995; Pryor, LaVite & Stoller 1993) suggests, sexual harassment may be
the result of a combination of individual as well as situational factors, where

individuals with a proclivity to harass, may be more likely to do so when placed in
situations that permit such behaviour. Thus there is a need for the development of a
conceptual framework that extends the work of Fitzgerald to include the work of
Pryor as well, while also examining each category of sexual harassment (gender
harassment, unwanted sexual attention and sexual coercion) separately, such that will
allow the exploration of the differential impact of individual differences as well as

organisational factors on each type of sexual harassment individually.
2.9 The proposed study

Consequently, the present research draws from the work of Fitzgerald and Pryor and
aims to develop a conceptual framework that extends and elaborates on the Fitzgerald
model while addressing the various limitations pointed out above. It will investigate
each behavioural category of sexual harassment separately and examine the role of
individual differences in addition to organisational determinants while exploring in
detail what person and what situation factors may possibly contribute to each type of
harassment individually (see Figure 2). In doing so, it will look at the victim as well
as the perpetrator by exploring separate models for each, and at the same time will
explore gender differences among targets and perpetrators with respect to antecedents
and consequences by testing distinct models for men and women.
With respect to outcomes for the victims of the harassment, it should be noted that in
ordcr to simplify the data collection and analysis of the proposed model, most
outcome variables examined by Fitzgerald and her colleagues (with the exception of
psychological outcomes) will be excluded. This exception is a pragmatic response to
sonne of the access/ethical issues discussed earlier that it

made necessary to reduce the
number of items included in the questionnaire to facilitate response rates. Thus future
research could benefit from the examination of more types of consequences and their
role in the proposed framework. Instead, in relation to outcomes, the present
investigation will focus on psychological outcomes in particular, as measured by the
12 item General Health Questionnaire (Goldberg & Williams, 1988). while exploring
the role of two other concepts here, that of (a) organisational tolerance, both directly
on psychological consequences, as well as indirectly in examining the effect of
tolerance on choice of coping strategy, as well as the role (b) coping strategies may
have in mediating this outcome.
30
2
L.
bA
w ý,
Hence the following models were proposed:
2.9.1 Perpetrator Model

It is hypothesised that:
(a) There will be differential determinants for each type of sexual harassment
perpetrated (gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention and sexual

coercion) that will include some combination of organisational predictors
consisting of organisational climate and job gender context (as suggested by
Fitzgerald and her colleagues), and individual differences (Pryor
et al, 1993)
such as personality traits, gender role and attitudes towards harassment.
2.9.2 Victim Model

It is hypothesised that:
(b) There will be differential determinants for each type of sexual harassment
experienced (gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention and sexual
coercion) that will include some combination of organisational predictors

such as organisational climate and job gender context (as suggested by
Fitzgerald and her colleagues), and individual differences (Pryor et al, 1993)
including personality traits, gender role and attitudes towards harassment.
2.9.3 Outcomes Model for Victims
With respect to outcomes, the current research examines the total experience of sexual
harassment instead of examining the effects of particular types of harassment, because
the different categories of the behaviour typically co-occur and it is not possible to
examine the effects of one type of harassment on its own (Schneider, Swan, &
Fitzgerald, 1997).
(c) organisational context (which, as described above, refers to an
organisation's degree of tolerance for sexual harassment) was expected to
influence choice of response strategy. A target of harassment may be more

likely to make a formal complaint if he or she thinks their organisation will
take the complaint seriously. If, on the other hand, an organisation does not
32
properly enforce sexual harassment regulations, a target of harassment may
decide it is too risky to report the behaviour and choose a less assertive
response.
Fitzgerald and Ormerod (1993), in a theoretical model of outcomes of sexual

harassment, urged researchers to explore the dynamics involved in outcomes
of
harassment in more detail, suggesting, among others, that future work examines the
relationship between organisational context and outcomes both indirectly (as above)
as well as directly. Thus it was also hypothesised that:
(d) organisational context was expected to directly influence psychological

health. The expectation here was that employees perceiving their organisation
as tolerant of sexual harassment, were more likely to demonstrate ill
psychological health than employees who perceive their organisation to have

low tolerance of harassment.
(e) victim response strategy was expected to mediate the relationship

between the harassment and psychological health, such that internal coping
strategies would have a negative impact on psychological health.
The experience of the harassment here is expected to lead the victim to react to this
(i. e. report the harassment or blame oneself for what happened), which in turn is
expected to influence the victim's psychological health. While the literature suggests
that external coping strategies exacerbate outcomes (Coles, 1986; Culbertson, et. al.,
1992; Hesson-McInnis & Fitzgerald, 1997; Loy & Stewart, 1994; Terpstra & Cook,
1985; USMSPB, 1988), according to Wilkinson and Campbell (1997: 209)
emotionally focused coping strategies (such as denial) in general, are less effective
than problem-focused coping strategies (such as confronting the problem) thus the
present study hypothesises that internal coping strategies will also have a negative
impact on outcomes.
Finally, affective disposition was used as a control v ariable against outcomes of
sexual harassment on (a) psyc hological health and also against (b) choice of coping
strategy. As part of the job stress literature in general, Judge and Hulin (1993)
33
suggested that affective disposition affects job related outcomes such that
people with
a more negative disposition overall were more likely to report job dissatisfaction than
people with a more positive disposition. Subsequently it is important to examine the
effect of affective disposition on sexual harassment outcomes in particular

as a
methodological check (Munson, Hulin & Drasgow. 2000; Shneider, Swan &
Fitzgerald 1997).
2.10 Framework concepts

As mentioned above the proposed framework explores the following concepts:
organisational antecedents, person antecedents, experiencing sexual harassment,
perpetrating sexual harassment, outcomes of sexual harassment, and affective

disposition (as a control variable).
Organisational antecedents will consist of: a) organisational climate, as defined

earlier in this chapter, which will be measured using the organisational tolerance of
sexual harassment inventory (OTSHI; Hulin, 1993; Hulin, Fitzgerald, & Drasgow,
1996; Zickar, 1994); and b) job gender context (jgc), also defined above, that will be
measured using items taken from the U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board (1981,
1987) that ask respondents to indicate if they are one of the first of their sex in their
field, if their immediate supervisor is male or female, and what the gender ratio of
their co-workers is.
Person antecedents (individual differences) will consist of: a) personality

characteristics (bfi) as measured by the 44 item version of the Big Five Inventory
(BFI) by John, Donahue & Kentle (1991) which measures openness to experience,
conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism; b) gender role (paq)

that measures the presence of masculine, feminine and androgynous traits, in both
men and women, as assessed by the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ)
(Spence, Heimreich, & Strapp, 1974,1975); c) harassment attitudes (attitudes)
measured using a 12 item scale based on the tolerance for sexual harassment
inventory which assessesbeliefs about harassment (Lott, Reilly, & Howard, 1982).
Experiencing harassment (gh. seq), unwanted sexual attention (usa. seq) and
goid('r
(.
sexual coercion Yc.seq). the experience of sexual harassment (gender harassment,
34
unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion) was assessed using the Sexual
Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ-R; Fitzgerald, et. al., 1988; Fitzgerald, Gelfand, &
Drasgow, 1995).
Per peirating gender harassment (gh. likely), unwanted sexual attention (usa. likeli")
and sexual coercion (sc. likelv). Participants were asked to indicate their likelihood to
perpetrate gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention and sexual coercion, from a
checklist based on the widely used sexual experiences questionnaire (mentioned right
above) by responding to a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "0" (never) to "5" (most
of the firne). There was no mention of the word "sexual harassment" and responses
were not based on the participant's perception of what harassment is, but rather on the
behaviours he or she had indicated.
Outcomes of sexual harassment: a) general health (ghq) was examined to assess
outcomes of sexual harassment on employee health. This was measured using the 12-
item version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ; Goldberg & Williams,
1988); b) response strategy (chq): was included to explore how each individual
responded to the harassment they experienced. This was measured by an abbreviated
version of the Coping with Harassment Questionnaire (CHQ; Fitzgerald, 1990), which
examines if targets utilise internal (emotion focused) or external (problem focused)
coping strategies; c) organisational climate (otshi), the same concept that is described
as part of the organisational antecedents above, will also be used to examine its
probable relation to choice of coping strategy as well as to explore its direct relation
to health outcomes.
Control i'ariable (affective disposition): affective disposition was assessed using the
neutral objects satisfaction questionnaire by Weitz (1952).
Figure 3 below maps the above discussed framework concepts onto the proposed
framework diagram. For a more detailed description of these measures please refer to
the method chapter.
35
O
i..
O
ßr
O
cri
aA
2.11 Summary of research strategy
Because the basic aim of the proposed research was the exploration of "causal"
models that require the use of multivariate statistical techniques such as Structural
Equation Modelling (SEM, that is defined in some detail in the chapter 4), the main
methodological approach utilised was quantitative, followed by some qualitative
work, in the form of focus groups (also defined in the chapter that follows), the
purpose of which was to unravel information (the nature of which is explored in
further detail in chapter 6) that the statistical approach alone could not reach.
The quantitative phase in particular, comprised of two stages: an exploratory study
conducted with a male dominated police organisation (described in chapter 5),

followed by a confirmatory study (chapter 6), examining if the results of the first
study had cross-validated on a completely different, less extreme and more gender
balanced academic organisation.
37
CHAPTER 3
OCCUPATIONAL CULTURE
CHARACTERISTICS THAT FOSTER
SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE POLICE
AND ACADEMIA
3.1 Introduction
The purpose of the present chapter is to discuss occupational culture characteristics in
the police and academia that may either foster or inhibit sexual harassment, thus also
providing the rationale for choosing these two organisations.
3.2 Overview of the concept of occupational culture
Despite the vast amount of research interest in the concept of occupational culture
across disciplines, there is little consensus regarding its definition. As Schein (1990)
put it:
"there is presently little agreement on what the concept does and should mean,
how it should be observed and measured, how it relates to more traditional
industrial and organisational theories, and how it should be used in our efforts
to help organisations. "
According to Millward (2003) it could be that this confusion surrounding the meaning
and definition of culture is related to the fact that the term "culture" is often used as a
synonym for the term "organisation" and used in an abstract sense which makes this
hard to pin down.
One definition provided by Martin and Siehl (1983) defines culture as:
"Glue that holds together an organisation through shared patterns of meaning.

Three component systems: context or core values, forms (process of
38
communication, e.g. jargon), strategies to reinforce content (e.g. rewards,
training programmes). "
One of the most comprehensive and, as such, widely used definitions of occupational
culture is that by Schein (1990):
"A pattern of basic assumptions, invented, discovered, or developed by a

given group as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and
integral integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and,
therefore, is to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think,
and feel in relation to those problems".
According to the above, occupational culture involves a set of assumptions made by
employees, which are instructive, although not necessarily explicit rules appearing on
a company's documents, and that have come into existence as the result of efforts
made by staff to adopt and integrate. Consequently shared norms and values in
organisations actually guide employee behaviour and to get accepted by the
workgroup and succeed, members need to learn these and to follow.
Furthermore, Schein (1990) suggests a multi-layered model of' culture that comprises
of ussulnptions, valrues, norms and behavioural artefacts. Assumptions lay at the most
inner layer and are unconscious. Values shape beliefs about what is important in the
organisation. Norms guide behaviour in particular settings. Artefacts are the visible
symbols that include visible behaviour, formal rules and procedures. According to this
model behaviour is determined by norms, which are determined by values, which are
determined by assumptions.
Another important issue raised in the literature are the similarities and differences
between the concepts of climate and culture. Schneider (1987) suggests that climate
and culture are complimentary topics as culture addresses assumptions and values
relating to why specific behaviours and activities are expected, supported and
rewarded, while climate concentrates on what is actually expected, supported and
rewarded (how the organisation functions). According to Cooke and Rousseau (1988)
climate is related to "how it feels to be a member of an organisation", whereas culture

involves beliefs about how to behave.
39
One more area of debate relates to the question of whether
organisational culture is
best described as monolithic or fragmented. Millward (2003)
presents a number of
cultural typologies developed in an effort to classify organisations according to their
most dominant characteristics. These typologies include that by Deal and Kennedy
(1982) that talk of macho cultures, work hard-play hard cultures, bet-your-company
cultures, and process cultures. Millward also describes the work of Williams, Dobson
and Walters (1989) that classify organisations as being power, role, task or people
oriented. Similar to this is the typology by Schein (1985) that describes organisations
as having either a power, role, achievement, or support culture. However as Millward

(2003) warns, such classifications of culture assume that it is actually possible to
classify an organisation as a whole, which may not necessarily be the case in today's
workplace that is rapidly changing, with an increasing focus on project-based work

that is continuously shifting.
Another important distinction to be made is that between dominant cultures and
organisational sub-cultures. A dominant culture refers to a group of core values that
are shared by the majority of an organisation's members (Luthans, 1995: 498). For
instance, employees at Hewlett-Packard focus on product quality, innovativeness and
excellence in customer service, while Southwest Airline employees place more

emphasis on company loyalty, hard work and customer service (Luthans, 1995: 499).
An organisational sub-culture on the other hand, involves values shared by what is
usually a small minority of members of an organisation and are often formed to help
members of a group deal with the day-to-day issues that confront them (Luthans,
1995: 499). According to Millward (2003) sub-cultures have many sources; including
the personal characteristics of their members (i. e. gender, age, ethnicity), social
histories of their members (social class, family background etc. ) positional
characteristics (such as department and role) and task exigencies (i. e. technical
requirements).
Thus, it is difficult to study employee behaviour without putting this into its
occupational and cultural context. Subsequently, the sections that follow take a closer
look at aspects of the occupational culture of organisations such as the police and
academia to see how these may foster or inhibit sexual harassment behaviour.
40
3.3 Aspects of police occupational culture
According to the sex-role spillover hypothesis discussed in the previous chapter
(Conrad & Gutek, 1986; Gutek, 1985; Gutek & Dunwoody, 1987; Gutek & Morasch,
1982) sexual harassment is more likely to occur in organisations
where the sex-ratio is
skewed because the sex-role of the dominant gender "spills the work
over" role
expectations of the job. Hence according to Gutek there is a higher incidence of
sexual harassment in organisations that are either male or female dominated, while the
actual form of the harassment and the reactions of victims will depend on which sex is
dominant in the organisation. Similar to the above hypothesis, Kanter (1977) also
suggested that the proportion of males and females in a workplace determines sexual
harassment.
Thus police organisations, being traditionally male dominated, are likely to have a
particularly high incidence of sexual harassment and studies of harassment conducted
with police forces support this. Martin (1980) conducted work that suggested a near
100 % incidence of sexual harassment in police forces. This was followed up by more
work conducted by Martin (1984) that found an approximately 50 % incidence rate,

obviously considerably less than the earlier work yet still a high rate. Furthermore
Brown (1998) in a study of women police officers in England and Wales found that
70 % of women police officers experienced some form of sexual harassment at least
once, while 44 % of these experienced harassment more than once. Open-ended

comments from policewomen participants in this study included the following typical
experiences:
"I was subjected to sexual assault by my shift where I was held down and my
top half stripped. This left me feeling dirty and to an extent vulnerable".
(Brown, 1998: 273)
"I have been subjected to sexist comments and minor sexual assault (i. e. men
grabbing me, twanging my bra strap and subtle brushing past my body).
Women officers are expected to just accept such behaviour". (Brown, 1998:
273)
Also Brown and Heidensohn (1996) from a sample of international policewomen
found that 79 % of British women indicated they had experienced sexual harassment
while 36 r/c of these indicated they had experienced this more than once. Brown,
4!
Campbell and Fife-Schaw (1995) reported that over 90 %
of policewomen serving in
England and Wales indicated that they work in an ambient
sexually harassing
environment, 70 % had had offensive sexualised remarks addressed to them
personally, 53 % were subjected to persistent requests for unwanted dates, and 6 c7,
had experienced a serious sexual assault perpetrated by a work colleague. In
a study
of sexual harassment in forces in England and Wales, Anderson, Brown and Campbell
(1993) reported that nine out of ten policewomen sampled indicated that they heard
suggestive jokes and comments of a sexual nature more than once. A police woman
working for Thames Valley police in 1998, described in a radio interview (23
November 1998) that followed her successful sexual harassment claim, how her
colleagues often said that she was successful on the job because she used her physical
attributes such as her cleavage (Brown & Heidensohn, 2000). Brewer (1991)
described how in response to being sexually harassed, women in the Royal Ulster
Constabulary (RUC), often tried to "become one of the boys", while women who
instead emphasised their femininity in order to avoid harassment, ended up being the
target of even more harassment. Finally in their report of a study of workplace

bullying across the UK, Hoe] and Cooper (2000) found that 12 % of people in the
police service (sample 483) indicated that they were presently experiencing bullying
at work, while 29 % indicated that they experienced bullying in the last five years.
Reiner (2001) in his discussion of police occupational culture suggested that the
politics of policing, like anything else, had fundamentally transformed in the last 10
years. In Reiner's analysis, much of that change has been due to police reform. That is
greater accountability and the introduction of performance management. However, in

his review of "cop culture", which he defines as the values and beliefs exhibited by
officers in their informal day to day practices, little has changed with respect to his
identified core characteristics. These characteristics include: mission, action, cynicism
and pessimism. Mission is not just a job but also a way of life and is characterised by
challenge, excitement, wits, and skill, and it's the thrill of the chase and fight that
captures the machismo and excludes women. Cynicism and pessimism is described by
the development of a protective coat as they see the police as being a beleaguered
minority about the over run. Central to police culture is old-fashioned machismo and
it is still his view that sexism in the police is reinforced by discriminatory and
harassing treatment of women officers.
42
With reference to attitudes towards women, one important characteristic
of police
culture is that historically female officers were not particularly welcome in the force.
Most policemen feel that police work is not suitable for women due to
what male
police consider to be their lack of physical strength that they feel is essential to
becoming a good copper (Fielding, 1999; Heidensohn, 1994). This is despite the fact
that only a very small fraction of policework involves physical strength, and while in
certain situations male police use physical strength, female police use verbal
communication that can be more effective in resolving problems than force in many
circumstances (Fielding, 1999). In addition, after getting accepted into the police,
females maintain their physical strength and fitness more so than males (Fielding,
1999), while research by Southgate (1986) on "women's talk" and "men's talk" (the
former being more cooperative and less dominant talk, and the latter being more
assertive and brusque) suggests that less aggressive, non-confrontational and

sympathetic approaches are more successful (Fielding, 1999).
Thus women are unwelcome in the force despite the number of new qualities they can
bring into this. In fact as Hoel, Cooper and Faragher (2001) explain, female
supervisors in general may be more likely to experience bullying overall due to

increasing envy directed towards these women as a result of increased competition in
organisation.
In fact Walklate (1995: 203) suggested that the presence of females in the police is a
threat to the masculine role of the force, which is central to everything police work
stands for, hence essentially undermining all that police work represents. As one male
inspector put it:
"One must consider the effect on a disciplined body of male persons under the
command of a woman. By their very nature men found in the police service
are of the strongest dominant type and this must cause disharmony" (Brown,
1997: 26).
Another male police officer said:
43
"Let us keep the ladies in their proper place. Pay them the same
and give them
the same conditions but let them do the women's work and relieve us of it. "
(Brown, 1997: 26).
Furthermore, Fielding discusses how in order for females to become accepted by the
dominant occupational culture, which as discussed above would be critical for them to
succeed, many "over-compensate" by taking on a similar ethos to that of their male

colleagues, instead of challenging the culture (Fielding and Fielding, 1992).
One distinction that is frequently made in reference to police occupational culture is
that between what is referred to as "cop culture" and what is referred to as "canteen
culture". "Cop culture" involves norms and values exhibited during working hours,
and "canteen culture" involves off-duty socialising.
Off-duty socialising has an important social support function, which Waddington

(1999) calls the "repair shop", and provides an outlet from the high levels of work
stress associated with policing. This involves excessive consumption of alcohol and
sexual indulgence, very macho ethic, enjoyed mostly by policemen, and frequently at
the expense of female police officers (Reiner, 2001: 98), which can either join in
(Fielding and Fielding, 1992) and risk becoming the object of this indulgence, or find
themselves excluded from this support system (Brown, 2000 260).
As Brown (2000: 260) put it, solidarity and mutual support is an important part of the
strong masculine ethos that characterises the police force. Yet while this can be an
advantage for the white male majority, being different, such as being a woman or
coming from a minority ethnic background, isolates officers from this informal
support network.
According to Brown and colleagues (Brown, Campbell & Fife-Schaw, 1995) the
nature of police work often involves cases of sex-related crime including prostitution.
This makes sexually explicit material readily available on the job. a feature that
sexualises the workplace and which could thus potentially foster sexual harassment.
Thus the police occupational culture, with it's traditionally male dominated nature,
macho ethic and negative attitudes towards females in the force does not provide a
44
very friendly climate for policewomen, who as documented above, are in their
majority, the target of sexual harassment in the police (Anderson, Brown & Campbell,
1993; Brewer, 1991; Brown, 1998; Brown, Campbell & Fife-Schaw, 1995, Brown &
Heidensohn, 1996; Martin 1980, Martin 1994).
3.4 Aspects of academic occupational culture
The sex-role spillover hypothesis (Conrad & Gutek, 1986; Gutek, 1985, Gutek &
Dunwoody, 1987; Gutek & Morasch, 1982) as well as the work of Kanter (1977)
described in the above section, introduce concepts that apply to academic workplaces
as well. However academia overall is more gender balanced in comparison to the

male dominated police force and thus the incidence of harassment here is less extreme
than that found in the police force overall.
Most studies of sexual harassment in academia have relied on student samples (i. e.
Bailey & Richards, 1985; Benson & Thomas 1982; Dzeich & Weiner, 1984;
Fitzgerald et. al., 1988), with less research actually conducted with faculty members
(i. e. Blakemore, 1997; Grauerholz, 1989; McKinney, 1990). Fitzgerald and colleagues
(1988) in a large study of female university students found that about 50 % of women
indicated they had experienced sexual harassment overall, with 35 % of these
indicating they had experienced gender harassment, 15 % indicating they were targets
of seductive behaviour, 5% reporting that they were either threatened or bribed in
exchange for some form of sexual favour, and finally 9% reported sexual imposition
ranging from unwanted touching to sexual assault. Bailey and Richards (1985)
reported the results of a mail survey of postgraduate female student members of the
American Psychological Association's (APA) Division of Clinical Psychology and
Division of Counselling Psychology. According to this survey's findings, 12.7 % of
women reported being sexually harassed, 15.9 % reported being directly assaulted, 3
% ended up dropping a module due to sexual harassment, 21 % did not enrol in a
particular module in order to avoid sexual harassment, and 11 % tried to report an

incident of sexual harassment (Bailey & Richards, 1985). Grauerholz (1989) found
that 48 % of women academic faculty reported experiencing sexual harassment from a
student (contra power sexual harassment). McKinney (1990) in a study of academic

faculty found that 14 %cof both male and female faculty members reported sexual
harassment by other members of faculty, and another 20 % reported being sexually
45
harassed by students. Blakemore and colleagues (1997: 65) in their
study of academic
staff found that 50 G/ of females and 11 % of males indicated they had experienced
unwelcome jokes or teasing of a sexual nature.
Zalk (1990) discusses a number of factors in the relationship between

professor and
student, which have the potential to encourage the exploitation of students by faculty
members. She emphasizes the power differential between students and their
professors; she describes how the power of the professor over the student is not only
related to status, but also to the power the first has over the latter as a mentor and as
someone with the ability to enhance as well as diminish the students' self-esteem not
only by way of marking intellectual performance but also by way of more general
feedback related to the intellectual capabilities of the student; while she also refers to
the admiration and idealisation of the academic by the student. These are all factors
that may foster the sexual harassment of students by academics, but do less to
facilitate instances of sexual harassment where faculty are the targets.
At the same time, Zalk (1990) also describes the unique autonomy associated with the
role of the academic, whose day-to-day job is less structured and more flexible, and
which also involves greater job security, especially once made permanent, and is also
far less rule-bound as there are very few guidelines dictating the faculty-student
relationship. These latter characteristics, aside fostering the exploitation of students

from faculty, could perhaps also be seen to explain sexual harassment among faculty
members. The autonomy of the job being less structured could perhaps provide more
opportunity for sexualised interactions among staff and job security could be seen as
doing less to inhibit such behaviour.
In addition, Grauerholz (1996: 45) suggests that academic environments place a
considerable emphasis on tradition that is likely to foster sexual harassment of female

faculty due to the fact that tradition implies that organisations are steered by men and
as such the structures of the organisation follow the views, norms and behaviour
dictated by tradition that sees men holding the power and females as the subordinates.
And although women academics have better opportunities regarding career
proression in comparison to women in the police force (Brown, 1997; Brown, 1998-
Z71
40
Brown, Campbell & fife-Schaw, 1995; Walklate, 1995)
nevertheless males still tend
to occupy the higher ranks in academia as well, which in turn
gives them greater
power (Kelly, 1988)
Another characteristic of academia, is that as an intellectual institution (Grauerholz,
1996: 44, Ramazanoglu, 1987), perpetrators may have the

skills to present their
comments or actions in such a way as to disguise them as having innocent intentions,
while targets, due to the competitive nature of the environment, may feel as though
they should have the ability to compete with the harasser linguistically.
Yet alongside the above-mentioned aspects of academia that may foster sexual
harassment, there are also a number of potentially inhibiting factors (Grauerholz,

1996: 46). One of these is the level of awareness raised over sexual harassment in
more recent time especially with reference to research by academics on harassment in
academia, which suggests that academics today should be more sensitised to issues of
harassment than they were in the past.
Unlike organisations such as the police (discussed above), academia is considered to
be less macho or sexist and rather more democratic and liberal. At the same time,
academic institutions are not particularly sexualised environments thus providing

limited opportunity for behaviour of sexualised nature (Grauerholz, 1996: 46).
Finally, academics have a considerable amount of autonomy in their job in relation to
many office professions, for instance, where workers are in close contact with their
line managers or boss and this provides less opportunity for harassment to take place
in academia (Grauerholz, 1996: 45).
To summarise, academic culture overall is less extreme than police occupational
culture, characterised by tradition as an institution, yet more gender balanced as a
whole compared to the male dominated police force, with characteristics that do foster
sexual harassment, which is characteristic of the workplace in general (Fitzgerald, et.
al., 1988; Fitzgerald & Ormerod, 1993), but also a less macho and less sexist
environment, with lower prevalence rates of sexual harassment in comparison to the
police.
47
3.5 Comparing sexual harassment between a police force and an academic
institution
Ilies and colleagues (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of sexual harassment incidence
rates based on 86,578 respondents from 55 independent samples. According to the
results of this study, sexual harassment was found to be most prevalent in the military,
while fewer women in academia considered themselves as having experienced sexual

harassment in comparison to women in other types of working environments. The
police force, is a quasi-military organisation that is predominantly male and with
particularly high levels of harassment being reported in the research literature
(Anderson, Brown & Campbell, 1993; Brewer, 1991; Brown, 1998; Brown, Campbell
& Fife-Schaw, 1995; Brown & Heidensohn, 1996; Hoel & Cooper, 2000; Martin
1980; Martin 1994). As a result, due to the relatively high incidence of sexual
harassment that researchers expected to find in the police force, this organisation was
for the present research because it provides a rich setting for these behaviours
chosen
to be explored. Subsequently, results will be tested on an academic institution to see if
they generalise from the male dominated police to this less extreme, more gender-
balanced organisation that has lower reported incidence rates in comparison to the
If relationships were to be found across such distinct organisations,

police sustainable
the proposed framework.
this would suggest a powerful confirmation of
48
CHAPTER 4
METHODOLOGY
4.1 Introduction
The aim of this chapter is to describe the analytical framework

used to test the
proposed models. This framework composed of two main approaches: the use of
Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) statistical techniques, followed by
some
qualitative work in the form of focus groups. The nature of both SEM and focus group
procedures as well as the rationale for utilising these are discussed in the next few
sections. Before these, the distinction between quantitative and qualitative
methodologies overall is presented.
4.2 The distinction between quantitative and qualitative methodologies

The distinction between quantitative and qualitative methodologies is a key issue in
psychological research methods. Traditionally, quantitative and qualitative

methodologies have been seen as representing opposing epistemological positions
(Hammersley, 1996).
Quantitative methodology
Quantitative methods have been the most widely used approach in psychology. At the
very centre of quantitative methodology lies the positivist scientific model according
to which the world is made up by relationships that are objectively defined and
external to the individual. As such, researchers can manipulate and measure particular
relationships among particular variables, so that they can test hypotheses about cause
and effect. Thus variables can be measured numerically, and results can be
statistically quantified. Quantitative methodology is deductive, theory driven and
in nature. A large number of cases are examined with the aim to be able
reductionist
to generalise to the overall population.
4l)
Qualitative Methodology
Qualitative research involves primarily non-numerical data that can be obtained from
face to face interview interaction with participants, observation, documentation etc.
According to qualitative research the world is not stable or uniform and there is no
universal truth as perspectives differ from group to group. Unlike quantitative

research, qualitative research does not test for predetermined outcomes and the aims
of the research could change while data is being collected and theory emerges from
this (Henwood & Pidgeon, 1992).
Quantitative and qualitative approaches as competing or complimentary paradigms

The debate between quantitative and qualitative methods comprises of two views
(Hamrnersley, 1996). The first view is that quantitative and qualitative approaches are
competing paradigms (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), while the second view is one of
methodological eclecticism (Henwood & Pidgeon, 1992).
According to the competing paradigms view (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) quantitative and
qualitative methods are seen as contradictory and incompatible approaches, and as

to make a choice between these. This was the dominant
such the researcher needs
years when methodological eclecticism started to become more
view until recent
popular.
Methodological eclecticism sees quantitative and qualitative approaches as
a mixture of the two

compatible methods that can compliment each other, whereby
the Furthermore, according this view, different methodologies
strengthens research.
be for different (Hammersley, 1996; Henwood &
may appropriate research questions
Pidgeon, 1992). The consensus here is that quantitative methods are more appropriate
where there is pre-existing theory, whereas qualitative methods are seen as more
there is a lack of theory. The bottom line according to methodological

useful where
eclecticism is that the choice of methodology (either purely quantitative, purely
of both) depends on the research question and aims.

qualitative, or some mixture
50
4.3 Structural Equation Modelling
Structural equation modelling (SEM) is a collection of statistical techniques that
allows for the testing of causal models and was hence chosen because the
main
objective of the present research was to test the proposed models. More specifically,
this type of analysis permits the examination of a number of
relationships between
multiple independent and multiple dependant variables (termed exogenous and
endogenous variables respectively in SEM terminology) at the same time. This allows
for the testing of causal models that incorporate and
correct for measurement error
that is essential when estimating parameters of causal models and assessing the
goodness of fit of the model to the data. It should be noted here that as Tabachnick
and Fidel l (1996) point out, although the term "causal modelling" is constantly used
to refer to structural equation modelling in the literature; causality should refer to
design (the relationships that SEM allows one to examine) and not to statistics.
The structural equation (11 = Bq + Fý + ý) describes the relations among the latent
(unobserved constructs the researcher is trying to measure) variables. The terms rl
(eta) and ý (ksi) refer to the latent endogenous (dependent) and the latent exogenous
(independent) variables. B (beta) is the matrix of direct effects of the latent
endogenous (dependent) q (eta) variables on each other, while F (gamma) is the
matrix of the direct effects of the latent exogenous (independent) ý (ksi) variables on
the latent endogenous (dependent) r (eta) variables. Finally c (zeta) is variance in the
latent endogenous (dependent) variables that is not attributable to the other latent
variables.
Assessing the fit of a model is not a straightforward matter. There is no agreement on
an optimal goodness-of -fit test or tests (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996; Maruyama,
1998). In particular, according to Tabachnick and Fidell (1996), there are potential
problems with both large and small samples. Relating this to the small sample of the
present project, with small samples in general, the resulting
;i
of the x' to the degrees of freedom is less than 2. Goodness-of-fit measures used
include the following: the Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) that
measures how much
better the model fits the data rather than no model
at all (the calculated valueshould be
larger than 95): the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) that is GFI
. similar to the
only it takes into account the degrees of freedom (should be larger than 0.90), the
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) that is a measure of fit per
degree of freedom (should be smaller than 0.05), the Root Mean Square Residual
(RMR) that is the square root of the average of the squared residuals (should be
smaller than 0.05). Again, as Tabachnick and Fidell (1996) explain, most good-fitting
models produce acceptable results in a variety of indices and if most indices lead to
similar conclusions it is a matter of preference of which of these to choose from and

this is why multiple indices are commonly reported.
4.4 Focus groups
The second part of the analytical framework utilised was that of the focus group.
According to Millward (2000) the focus group is a discussion based interview with
simultaneous multiple respondents that is carried out in a "focused" (as in on an

"external stimulus") and "staged" (for instance by a "moderator") method. This
approach has evolved from its widespread use by marketing consultants trying to
understand consumer behaviour (Millward, 2000). The focus group can be used either
as a primary or supplementary technique: as a primary technique it is used to examine
people's attitudes, values etc, or in the development of constructs and questionnaires;
as a secondary technique, it can be used to examine the issue at hand in more detail.
In fact one of the most prevalent uses of focus groups is to supplement large-scale
surveys (Ashbury, 1995, cited in Millward, 2000).
Hence this was also the rationale for the use of the focus group in the present
research: to explore information generated by the survey methodology used in the first
instance (as described later in this chapter) that was analysed using SEM techniques
as described above. In particular, an inductive (rather than deductive) weak social
constructionist epistemological approach was taken, in order to explore the meaning

of certain concepts to individuals (e.g. what it means to a man versus a woman when a
female versus a male boss strokes their hair) using thematic content analysis to
52
generate the most important themes, or categories of meaning generated by focus
group participants.
4.5 Quantitative methods utilised by the present research

As discussed in the preceding chapters the quantitative phase of the study comprised
two stages: an exploratory study conducted with a male dominated organisation

(police force A), followed by a confirmatory study conducted in a more balanced
organisation (university B).
4.5.1 Participants
Police organisation
The data for the first study were collected from a police force in the U. K. Stratified
random sampling was used so that every possible sample (police officers, support
staff and all ranks) had an equal probability of selection. Women, a minority in the
organisation, were over sampled in order to obtain sufficient numbers. A total of 1000
civilian and police members of staff were approached. Of these, 302 responded, and
of these 260 contained sufficient data to be included in the analysis, yielding a rate of
26%, that is near the expected return rate of studies of this nature (Fitzgerald, 1990).
Table 1: Police organisation participants
civilian police Total

male 82 53 135
female 62 63 125
144 116 260
University organisation
Data for the second study were collected from academic and support staff employed
by a University in the UK. In order to obtain sufficient returns, questionnaire surveys
were posted to the entire population of the participating schools. Hence a total of 750
questionnaires were sent out, 228 were returned, and of these 202 (118 male and 84
female) contained sufficient data to be included in the analysis, yielding a response
rate of approximately 27%, which again is consistent with other studies of sensitive
nature (Fitzgerald, 1990).
53
Table 2: University organisation participants
support academic Total

male 34 84 118
female 40 44 84
74 128 202
4.5.2 Missing-Data
First of all questionnaires with fewer than 50% of the items completed were
eliminated from the analysis. Hence data from 12 police and 9 academic respondents
were discarded. In other instances with less severe amounts of missing data, the same
method as Fitzgerald et. al. (1997) was adopted which has followed the example of
Finkbeiner (1979), substituting items means if I item was missing from a scale no
larger than 10 items, and no more than 2 items were missing from a scale containing
more than 10 items. Hence item means were substituted forl5 police and 9 academic
respondents where 1 item was missing from a scale no larger than 10 items, and for 6
police and 11 academic respondents where no more than 2 items were missing from a
scale containing more than 10. Questionnaires where missing data exceeded these
figures were excluded from the analysis.
4.5.3 Procedure
Police organisation
Data was collected using a questionnaire survey (Appendix B) mailed out to each
respondent. This was accompanied by a letter from the Chief Constable (this is not
included in the Appendix in order to protect the organisation under investigation as it
contains several references to the police force utilised) and an information sheet
(Appendix B) describing the purpose of the research as setting to study the workplace
environment, emphasising that participation was voluntary, anonymous and
confidential. Also note that some references to the organisation under investigation
were also made in the information sheet and these were eliminated from the copy
provided in the present thesis. For the convenience of respondents a pre-addressed
and pre-paid envelope was also included.
54
University organisation
A questionnaire survey (Appendix B) was also used to collect data from the
University organisation. This was also accompanied by an information sheet
(Appendix B) describing the purpose of the research, ensuring anonymity and
confidentiality and stressing that participation was voluntary. Please note that a few
references to the organisation under investigation were made in this information sheet
as well, and these were eliminated from the copy provided in the present thesis. Again
a pre-addressed and pre-paid envelope was included for the convenience of the
respondents.
4.5.4 Measures
The same questionnaire instrument was used for both the police and the academic
samples, although adjustments were made to the wording of the instrument and a
different set of demographic questions were included for each study, due to the
distinct nature of the samples. The demographic questions for the instrument that was
distributed to the police enquired about participants' gender, age and length of service
in the police force, about their rank, if they were frontline staff or non frontline, and
finally if they were civilian staff or not. The demographic questions used for the
academic study enquired about participants' gender, age, and staff category (asking if
they were support or academic staff).
The following measures were included in the questionnaire:
a) Organisational climate: the organisational tolerance of sexual harassment
inventory (OTSHI; Hulin, 1993; Hulin, Fitzgerald, & Drasgow, 1996; Zickar,
1994) was used to measure organisational climate which refers to employee
perceptions of risk in reporting harassment, the likelihood that a report would

be taken seriously, and the consequences for the perpetrator. This 18-item
measure presents participants with six brief scenarios in which the status of the
harasser (supervisor or co-worker) is crossed with each type of harassment
(gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention and sexual coercion). Each
scenario (e. g.: "a supervisor in your department talks a great deal about his or
her sex life and tries to get his/her male/female subordinates to talk about their
personal lives also") is followed by three 5-point scales assessing how risky it
would be for someone in the department to report the harassment (none to
55
extremely risky), how likely it is that this person would be taken seriously
(almost no chance to very good chance) and what consequences would the
formal complaint have for the perpetrator.
b) Job gender context: this was assessedusing items taken from the U. S. Merit
Systems Protection Board (1981,1987). Respondents were asked to indicate if
they were one of the first of their sex in their field and if their immediate
supervisor was male or female. They were asked to rate the gender ratio of
their co-workers on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (almost all men) to 5
(almost all women). A man with a female supervisor, with mostly female co-
workers, who was one of the first men in his job, would belong to a feminine
job context. On the other hand, a woman with a male supervisor, with mostly
male co-workers, and who was one of the first women in her job would belong
to a masculine job context.
c) Big Five Iiiveiitorv: Participants were asked to fill out the 44 item version of
the Big Five Inventory by John, Donahue & Kentle, (1991) which includes
subscales measuring openness to experience (10 items), conscientiousness (9

items), extroversion (8 items), agreeableness (9 items) and finally neuroticism
(8 items). Respondents had to indicate their agreement or disagreement on a 5-
point scale ranging from I (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly) with
statements such as "worries a lot" or "has an assertive personality", in
completing the sentence "I see myself as someone who".
d) Gender role: Masculinity, Femininity and Androgyny were assessedby the
Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ) (Spence, Heimreich, & Strapp, 1974,
1975). Each pair of items on this measure represent the presence or absence of
a characteristic (such as not at all aggressive - very aggressive) with the letters
A-E between these and respondents are instructed to chose the letter which
best describes where they "fall" on the scale. This instrument has a total of 24
items (8 items on each scale).
c) Harassment attitudes: attitudes toward sexual harassment were assessed
using a 12 item scale based on the tolerance for sexual harassment inventory
56
(Lott, Reilly, & Howard, 1982) which assesses beliefs about harassment.
Participants were asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement with
statement such as "people have the right to get upset about unwanted romantic
advances at work" and "much of what people call sexual harassment is simply
a misunderstanding" on a 7-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to

strongly agree.
f) Experiencing se-vital harassment: the experience of sexual harassment

(operationalised as gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual
coercion) was assessed using the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ-R;

Fitzgerald, et. al., 1988; Fitzgerald, Gelfand, & Drasgow, 1995). Participants
were asked to indicate if they had experienced a list of behaviours by
responding to a Likert scale ranging from "1" (iiel'er) to "5" (most of the time).
This inventory is considered to be one of the most methodologically sound
measures assessing the incidence of sexual harassment available (Arvey &
Cavanugh, 1995) because responses are not based on what the participant's
perception of what harassment is, but on the behaviours he or she has

indicated.
g) Perpetrating sexual harassment: Participants were asked to indicate their

likelihood to perpetrate behaviours (gender harassment, unwanted sexual
attention and sexual coercion) from a checklist based on the widely used
sexual experiences questionnaire (SEQ) (SEQ-R; Fitzgerald, et. al., 1988;

Fitzgerald, Gelfand, & Drasgow, 1995) by responding to a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from "0" (never) to "5" (most of the time). Again there was no
mention of the words "sexual harassment" and responses were not based on
the participant's perception of what harassment is, but rather on the behaviours
he or she had indicated.
This new scale was examined via principal components analysis with oblique
rotation. Oblimin rotation provides a "non-orthogonal" solution and the
rotated factors can be correlated. This was chosen over Varimax rotation that
does not allow the factors to correlate because behaviours here were expected
to correlate, as they are part of the same overall concept of sexual harassment.
57
The number of factors was specified as three, as the interest of the present
research was to develop scales for gender harassment, unwanted sexual
attention and sexual coercion. However when the number of factors was left
unspecified, results were identical, resulting in three factors regardless of
approach.
The structural coefficients for the pattern matrix as well as the communalities
values are presented in the tables that follow:
;8
Table 3: Pattern Matrix for principal components analysis of perpetrator items
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factors I II III
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ghl 198 862 054

-. . -.
Gh2. 124 768 037
. . .
Gh3 279 438 243
. . .
Gh4 -. 077 720 023
. .
Gh5 -. 080 686 184
. .
us a1 080 625 132
. . -.
Usa2 -. 008 018 846
-. .
Usa3 412 511 078
. . .
Usa4 -. 049 111 691
. .
Usa5 001 -. 087 897
. .
Sc l 653 014 171
. -. .
Sc2 971 041 041
. -. -.
Sc3 975 -. 006 -. 077
.
Sc4 975 -. 006 -. 077
.
Sc5 975 -. 006 -. 077
.
Note: gh 1: remarks appearance; gh2: sexual remarks; gh3 suggestive comments; g114: remarks
on sexual activities; gh5: sexual remarks body
usal: draw discussion regarding personal matters; usa2: stroke body part
usa3: draw discussion sex life; usa4: caress; usa5: fondle attempts
'a 1: assist in exchange for sexual favours; sc2: imply better treatment if respond to social
.
invitations; sc3: bribe in exchange for sexual favours; sc4: imply make things difficult if don't
co-operate sexually; sc5: imply better treatment if co-operate sexually
59
Table 4: Communalities for items in principal components analysis
Communalities
GH1 686
.
G H2 664
.
G H3 455
.
GH4 511
.
GH5 561
.
USA1 384
.
USA2 706
.
USA3 555
.
USA4 532
.
USA5 765
.
SC1 466
.
SC2 924
.
SC3 943
.
SC4 943
.
SC5 943
.
Note: gh 1: remarks appcaI ancc: gh2: sexual remarks; gh3 suggestive comments; gh4: remarks
on sexual activities; g/i5: sexual remarks body

ii sal: draw discussion regarding personal matters; usa2: stroke body part
usa3: draw discussion sex life; us i4: caress; usa5: fondle attempts
xcl: assist in exchange for sexual favours; sc2: imply better treatment if respond to social
invitations; sc3: bribe in exchange for sexual favours; sc4: imply make things difficult if don't
co-operate sexually; sc5: imply better treatment if co-operate sexually
As indicated above, all structural coefficients loaded on the expected factors,
with the exception of usal and usa3. Dropping these two items was
considered, yet it was decided that it was more important to remain consistent
with the work of Fitzgerald and colleagues, as it is the purpose of the present
work to extend the work of Fitzgerald, and in order to be able to draw
comparisons with this work as well as between the perpetrator and victim
it
measures, was important for the perpetrator items to be consistent with the
SEQ measure (SEQ) (SEQ-R; Fitzgerald, et. al., 1988; Fitzgerald, Gelfand, &
Drasgow, 1995) developed by Fitzgerald and colleagues.
60
h) Affective disposition: Affective disposition was assessed using the
neutral
objects satisfaction questionnaire by Weitz (1952). This scale was reported by
Judge and Hulin (1993) to have good reliability and validity. Participants
were
asked to respond if they feel satisfied, neutral or dissatisfied with each item
from an index listing neutral objects such as the colour of stop signs, the size
of refrigerators etc.
i) Response strategy: how each individual responded to the harassment they
experienced was assessed using an abbreviated version of the coping with

harassment questionnaire (Fitzgerald, 1990), which determines if the
individual utilised internal (emotion focused) or external (problem focused)
coping strategies. Respondents were asked to indicate on a 5-point scale how
descriptive each response was of their reactions to the incident.
j) General Health: the 12-item version of the General Health Questionnaire
(Goldberg & Williams, 1988) was used to assess outcomes on employee
health. This abbreviated version was chosen for practical purposes in order to
reduce an already lengthy questionnaire.
4.6 Qualitative methods utilised by the present research

Focus groups were drawn from a sample of social science PhD students and
Postdoctoral researchers of a university organisation in the UK. This was actually a
convenience sample, drawn as part of an inductive approach aiming to explore (rather

than explain or confirm) and as such the sample composition (aside the gender split as
described below) was not considered to be of primary importance. Instead, the aim of
this work was to explore the meaning of certain concepts to individuals, using a weak
social constructionist epistemological approach, and thematic content analysis to
produce categories of meaning, or themes generated by focus group participants.
It has been suggested that males and females interact differently when in groups
consisting of men and Women in comparison to single-sex groups and as a result
many believe that focus groups should be either all male or all female (Millward.
01
2000). Consequently two separate focus groups were conducted in the
present study,
one male and one female. The male focus group consisted of five individuals ranging
in age between late twenties to early forties. The female focus group consisted
of six
individuals again ranging in age between mid twenties to mid thirties. The
sessions.
which were conducted in October 2002, were tape-recorded and transcribed and lasted
approximately one hour each. To guarantee the anonymity of the respondents,
pseudonyms were assigned in place of their full name. The discussions were loosely
structured, and participants were given examples of behaviours and were asked to
discuss the meaning behaviours had to them and how this differed between
behaviours that they felt were acceptable and behaviours that felt were sexually
harassing. Perceived motives behind these behaviours were explored, as well as the
degree to which they thought that these behaviours happened in their organisation.
Finally, they were asked to indicate the level of their familiarity with the rules and
structures their organisation had in place with reference to sexual harassment, as well
as the nature of the meaning that organisational tolerances had to them, and the extent
of the influence that this meaning had on their willingness to report an incident.
Table 5: Male Group Participants

Pseudonym Age Nationality
David 27 British
Ben 42 British
Ken 28 British
Eric 29 British
Aaron 35 British
Table 6: Female Grouts Participants

Pseudonym Age Nationality
Anna 26 British
Florence 26 British
Becky 29 Greek
Denise 35 British
Cathy 30 Slavic
Erica 32 British
62
4.7 Ethical considerations and methodological issues
Sexual harassment constitutes a sensitive topic and as such research of this
nature
inevitably comes with ethical considerations. There are numerous definitions for
sensitive topics. One such definition provided by Lee (1993, p. 4) describes sensitive
topics as those that include areas that are private, stressful, sacred, or which
potentially expose information that is stigmatising or incriminating.
Sexual harassment does involve behaviours and experiences that could be private or
stressful and may be perceived by individuals or organisations as having the potential

to expose stigmatising or incriminating information.
Ethical considerations regarding participants

The present research has set out, among other things, to examine predictors of sexual
harassment in organisations and proposes that such predictors involve a combination
of personal and organisational factors. Hence personality characteristics are explored

with reference to both victims of and perpetrators of harassment. Therefore it must be
emphasised that the present work is concerned with the development of theory and the
enhancement of our understanding of why, how, and with what consequences sexual
harassment occurs in organisations, and by no means are personality associations to
be made to pathologise the victim, victimise them for a second time, or to be used to
label persons with certain traits as victims or harassers. Instead, individual differences
are seen as crucial to the illumination of the dynamics of sexual harassment that
involves behaviour that cannot be fully understood without taking a closer look at the
individual. Again, the present research was only interested in relationships between
variables and was not concerned with identifying instances of harassment. As such the
aggregated results of this research will make it in no way possible to identify

individuals indicating that they experienced or perpetrated behaviour(s).
Another problem with research of sensitive nature is the likelihood that it may raise
issues for respondents concerning their treatment at work. It is also possible that the
present research may raise issues to the harasser concerning their own perceptions of
their social conduct and how this describes them morally or even as to where this
03
places them on a continuum of "normal" behaviour. For these reasons, volunteers
should be provided with a list of resources they could go to if the research were to
raise such issues for them. The present work provided all participants with a list of
names of internal contacts within their organisation as well as with a list of external
resources that were part of the respective information sheets. (Appendix B and Q. It
should be noted however, that these resources have been removed from the
information sheets presented in the Appendices as it was judged that they contained
too many references to the organisations under study.
Ethical considerations regarding organisations

Going back to Lee's definition of sensitive topics, not only do such issues involve
ethical considerations relating to individual participants, but, as Lee suggests
(1993: 4), their potential to expose "stigmatising or incriminating" information also
relates to organisations in their resisting potential exposure of information of this

kind. This is in line with the difficulties experienced by the present researchers in
obtaining organisational access. Indeed this process was very time consuming. As
discussed in more detail in the section that follows, it took approximately one year
before access was granted to the police organisation utilised in study one and nearly
six months before access was granted to the academic institution utilised for study
two. Approval from the University's ethics committee also involved stricter
requirements than normal compared to studies of less sensitive nature. To ensure
confidentiality and the anonymity of participants only the most basic demographic
questions were included in the questionnaire (Appendix B and C) excluding break

downs by departments or divisions in order to prevent any possibility of individuals
being identified. Also assurances had to be made about the nature and purpose of the
research, which as described above, seeks to develop a theoretical framework
examining the relationship amongst several variables (i. e. identifying antecedents,
outcomes and mediating variables) and by no means to identify specific instances of

harassment.
Methodological issues regarding quantitative approach
The process of negotiating organisational access was very lengthy, such that it took
approximately one year before access was granted to the police force and
approximately six months before access was granted to the academic institution. In
04
particular, with reference to police access, the head of the centre for police force A
(please note that disclosing the names of individual forces
approached was not
considered appropriate as references to particular forces in the context of such
negotiations and their willingness to participate may in itself have the potential to be
viewed as damaging public perception) was approached, a copy of the questionnaire

was provided, and the aim of the proposed research was described as wishing to
develop a model of antecedents and outcomes of bullying and harassment in the
workplace, while assuring that the purpose of the work was to examine relationships
among the variables and by no means to identify specific instances of bullying and
harassment. Finally feedback and training input were offered in exchange to gaining
organisational access. The initial response sounded promising, and as a result no other
organisations were approached at the time. However, when the study was brought for
final approval at a board meeting, it was decided that the timing was not appropriate
for the organisation. Following this, queries were made to the Chief Constables of two
other forces (B and C) although access for research in bullying and harassment was
turned down upon initial request, before a formal proposal was even formulated. Later
another proposal was made to the Chief Constable of police force D, providing a copy
of the questionnaire, stating the aims of the research as above, again giving assurances
with reference to the confidentiality and anonymity of the results, and offering
feedback and training input in exchange. In this instance, the initial response was
positive, yet following this, the research was halted due to management change in the
organisation. At this point the present researchers were actually approached by police
force E, that was interested in receiving training input, and in turn researchers
suggested that data was collected from the organisation using the proposed
questionnaire and testing the proposed model of antecedents and outcomes of bullying
and harassment in the workplace, such that training input can be given based on
results from the organisation. As a result, access was finally granted.
Regarding access to the academic institution, first of all a letter was sent to Personnel
and the Chair of Equal Opportunities at the academic organisation A, to see if they
would support the research in principle. The aims were described as seeking to
examine work environments with reference to antecedents and outcomes of bullying
and harassment and to draw comparisons with the police. Following this, researchers
asked if it was appropriate to send letters to Heads of Schools requesting access. The
(, S
response from Personnel was positive and they suggested going ahead with the
respective letters to Heads of Schools. Consequently, following this, a copy of the

questionnaire and letters were sent to each Head of School offering anonymised and
confidential feedback. These described the purpose of the research as the development
of theory by way of a conceptual framework examining relationships among variables

such as antecedents, outcomes and mediating variables of bullying harassment and by
no way aiming to identify specific instances. Assurances were given to this end, and
demographic questions were limited to the most basic possible to reassure both the
organisation and individual participants of confidentiality and anonymity. Thus

information such as breakdowns by departments, divisions and other demographics
were limited. The majority of Schools accepted the research, although responses took
several months and a number of follow-up letters to Heads of Schools were necessary.
To boost the low expected sample returns, a similar letter and copy of the
questionnaire were also sent to the director of studies at another site of the same
academic institution. However unfortunately following a few months wait, this was
refused as staff at this site were already participating in another research study and it
was thought inappropriate to involve them in a second one. Finally letters were sent to
individuals within the organisation that had been appointed as harassment advisors by
each School to make sure that they agreed to their names being used in the survey
information sheet as a resource to questionnaire respondents. All harassment advisors
responded positively.
Although advertising the survey before the distribution of the questionnaire (by way
of poster adverts in the canteen for instance) as well as follow-up questionnaires were
suggested by the researchers in order to boost sample size returns, the police
organisation did not allow either of these, suggesting that the limited time frame
allowed between collection and training input that they imposed, did not allow for
this. Similarly, it was not possible to distribute follow-ups in the academic survey
either as this was again restricted, this time due to the sensitive nature of the present
research. Consequently the response rates for the questionnaire surveys were only
about 26ý/%for the police and for

27%7% the academic institution. This is common in
studies of sexual harassment, particularly where postal questionnaires are sent out to
random samples instead of using convenience sampling (Fitzgerald, 1990). Many
studies of sexual harassment have relied on convenience samples such as lectures and
66
meetings, and yet while these yield very high response rates they are obviously not
very methodologically sound as they are non-random, non-general 1sable and specific
to the setting in which they take place (Fitzgerald, 1990; Arvey & Cavanaugh, 1995).
Another issue that is also a strong criticism of sexual harassment research in
general is
the possibility of over-reporting as harassed women or those who are more sensitive
to such issues are more likely to return questionnaires than others (Fitzgerald, 1990:
Arvcy & Cavanaugh, 1995). However, it should be noted that it is also possible that
people that have experienced sexual harassment could also be less likely to participate
as a way of avoiding unpleasant memories and hence both over as well as under-
reporting of the prevalence of sexual harassment are possible (Arvey & Cavanaugh,
1995; Vaux, 1993). It is also conceivable that women are embarrassed by sexually
harassing behaviours and hence less likely to participate, again resulting in the under-
reporting of harassment (Arvey & Cavanaugh, 1995).
Regarding the perpetrator- measure developed, that is discussed in more detail earlier
in this chapter, the content of the items involved, may raise questions regarding: a)
why people would admit to perpetrating these harassing acts, b) whether people
should believe the data arising from these questions, and c) whether these acts would
be admitted to if the respondent believed they would be classified as harassing acts.
Before an attempt is made to answer these questions, it is necessary to explain the
rationale for the design of these items. In particular, it was felt that no existing scales
measuring perpetrator behaviour were appropriate. The only scale devised to measure
these types of behaviours was the Likelihood to Sexually Harass scale (LSH) devised
by Pryor (1987) that used scenarios to assess people's likelihood of perpetrating quid
pro quo sexual harassment in particular, yet this scale was inappropriate for purposes
of the present research that was interested in examining gender harassment and
unwanted sexual attention as well, and that also wanted to use a more behavioural
item approach such as to be able to make comparisons with the Sexual Experiences
questionnaire (SEQ-R; Fitzgerald, et. al., 1988; Fitzgerald, Gelfand, & Drasgow.
1995) utilised in the investigation of targets of harassment. The SEQ is the most
widely recognised measure of sexual harassment experiences in the literature, exactly

because it utilises a behavioural checklist approach to measuring behaviours that
victims tend to view as sexually harassing (i. e. as in Anderson, Brown & Campbell,
1993). Consequently, the present perpetrator measure was devised based on the
67
behavioural checklist approach in the SEQ and on the view held by most feminists,
as
discussed by Thomas and Kitzinger (1997: 131), that the harasser's motivations
and
intentions should be irrelevant in interpreting behaviour as sexually harassing. Thus in
response to the first point "a" above, people were asked to endorse the behaviours that
applied to them regardless of whether they thought they were harassing or not (the
term "sexual harassment" was not used) and hence people would endorse them
because the behaviour applied to them, although it is possible that some people would
not endorse a behaviour, even if it did apply to them, if they thought that (and in
answer to the third point "c" above) these acts would be classified as harassing.
Finally in response to the second point "b" above, this scale set out to measure the
behaviours endorsed regardless of the respondent's perception of behaviour being
harassing or not and as such it is considered that the data arising from this can be
trusted, although the possibility of under-reporting discussed cannot be discounted.
Another methodological limitation due to the low response rate of the questionnaire
survey for both the police and the university organisation was that it was not possible
to test a measurement model prior to the structural model (described above). A
measurement model links the observed variables to their latent (unobserved)
constructs in order to establish that the latent (unobserved) variables can be measured
well. This approach requires multiple observed measures (called manifest indicators)
for each latent (unobserved) construct and relates these measures to theoretical
variables (or factors). To use an example given by Tabachnick and Fidell, (1996),
using multiple manifest indicators per latent construct, would be to say, for instance,
that undergraduate success (the latent variable) could be measured by a) one's grade
point average at university b) their performance on the graduate record examination

they took in order to get accepted to their postgraduate course and by c) the reference
letter they got from one of their lecturers (where a, b, and c are one indicator each).
However the sample size obtained from the present study was hardly large enough to
have a single pre-existing manifest indicator (one measure) for each latent construct,
i.
where e. the GHQ measure was used as a single indicator to measure general health
in the present study.
68
Methodological issues regarding qualitative approach
With respect to the supplementary focus group discussions, these
were conducted
with an academic sample alone, instead of using a police sample as well (as was the
case with the quantitative approach that involved the study of a police organisation as
well as the academic study). In addition, concerning the ethnic composition of the
male and female groups, as indicated within the tables presented earlier in this
section, the male group composed of all British participants, while the female group
composed of four British women as well as one Slavic and one Greek. As a result, the
issue of culture in the interpretation of behaviour was brought up by the participants
of the female group, but did not come into the discussion of the male group. In fact,
because the male group was conducted later in time after the female group, the
discussant introduced the question (due to the fact that this issue came up in the other
group) but obviously it was not as easy for non-foreigners to make cross-cultural
comparisons in the same way as the non-British participants had. Never the less,
although the consistency of this sample is likely to have influenced discussion in the
above manner to some extent, as explained earlier in this chapter, this was drawn as a
convenience sample, as part of an exploratory and inductive approach, and hence the
sample composition was not of primary concern.
Overall conclusion
This section has described the ethical considerations encountered in the present
research due to the sensitive topic it covers while it has also described methodological
limitations arising largely from issues very much related to its delicate nature. In fact
a great deal of care needs to be taken where research involves such sensitive issues.
But also, as Sieber and Stanley have pointed out:
`Sensitive research addresses some of society's pressing social issues and

policy questions. Although ignoring the ethical issues in sensitive research is
not a responsible approach to science, shying away from controversial topics,
simply because they are controversial, is also an avoidance of responsibility'
(1988, p. 55).
69
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS OF STUDY ONE
5.1 Introduction
The purpose of the present chapter is to present the results of study one in which a
model combining the work of Fitzgerald (Fitzgerald et al., 1997) and Pryor (Pryor,
1987; Pryor, Giedd & Williams, 1995; Pryor, LaVite & Stoller 1993) as described in
chapter 2 is tested. Study is

one an exploratory model that will:
" Investigate each behavioural category of sexual harassment separately.
0 Explore the role of person antecedents (such as personality characteristics,
gender role and attitudes towards sexual harassment) in addition to
organizational determinants (organizational tolerance and job gender context)

to investigate in detail what person and what organization factors may
contribute to each type of sexual harassment individually.
" Examine separate models for victims and for perpetrators
0 Explore gender differences among targets and perpetrators with respect to the
above antecedents and outcomes by testing distinct models for men and
women
0 Investigate psychological outcomes and their relationship with organizational
tolerance and coping in more detail.
" Finally affective disposition (Munson, Hulin & Drasgow, 2000; Shneider,
Swan & Fitzgerald 1997) was also examined as a control variable so that it's
possible role in relation to psychological outcomes and coping could be
compared to that of the harassment.
With reference to outcomes two limitations need be highlighted: a) as discussed in
earlier chapters, for practical purposes and in an effort to limit the size of the
questionnaire, the present study focused on psychological outcomes only, to the
70
exclusion of physical and organisational consequences b) it is not possible to examine
the effects of one type of harassment on its own because the different categories of the
behaviour typically co-occur (Schneider, Swan, & Fitzgerald, 1997) and thus the total
experience of sexual harassment instead of the effects of particular types of

harassment were examined in the present framework.
As detailed earlier in the method chapter the present study was conducted with male
and female police officers and support staff from a police organisation in the U. K.
5.2 Analysis
The present section will first describe the sample characteristics followed by the scale
correlations and then the perpetrator, victim, and outcome models
5.2.1 Sample Characteristics
The police sample consisted of 136 males and 128 females. This included 72 male
and 60 female support staff, as well as of 61 male police officers and 65 female police
officers.
The mean age for the police sample was 36.8 (standard deviation 7.8). The mean age
for the support sample was 41.1 (standard deviation 10.9). The mean for male support
staff was 43.6 (standard deviation 11.2), for female support staff was 37.9 (standard
deviation 9.8), for male police officers was 40.4 (standard deviation 7.3) and for the
female police 35.5 (standard deviation 6.7).
Front line staff in the police organisation consisted of 54 male and 55 female police
officers as well as 15 male and 5 female support staff. Non-front line staff consisted
of 7 male and 10 female police officers as well as 55 male and 49 female support
staff.
As table 7 indicates, there was a significant difference in length of service by staff
category among males in the police organisation such that there were more male
support staff (than police officers) with a length of service up to 10 years, and more
male police officers (than support staff) with a length of service of 11 years upwards.
71
However, among females there was no significant difference by length and
staff
category.
Table 7:
Length of service * staff category *gender
staff category chi-

gender support police
male length of 1-5 years 14 3
service 20.9% 5.1%
6-10 years 26 9
38.8% 15.3%
11-20 years 16 21
23.9% 35.6%
21-more years 11 26
16.4% 44.1%
Total 67 59 21.711
100.0% 100.0% p: .000
female length of 1-5 years 16 21
service 29.1% 33.9%
6-10 years 20 14
36.4% 22.6%
11-20 years 14 16
25.5% 25.8%
21-more years 5 11
9.1% 17.7%
Total 55 62 3.712
100.0% 100.0% p: .244
As shown in 8 and 9 tables below, in the police there were significant differences in
grade by gender for support staff, as well as in rank by gender for police officers.
These differences were such that, among support staff, there were significantly more
males than females in the senior officer grades, and among police officers, there were
significantly more males in the supervisor police ranks than females.
72
ender
male female chi-square
rank scale 1-6 32 32
grade 66.7% 80.0%
senior 10 1
officers
20.8% 2.5%
traffic 6 7
controlers 12.5% 17.5%
Total 48 40 6.769
100.0% 100.0% p:. 034
ender
rank constables 28 52
48.3% 81.3%
supervisors 30 12
51.7% 18.8%
Total 58 64 14.655
100.0% 100.0% p: .000
Tables 10 and 11 that follow present percentages of harassing behaviour perpetrated
and experienced in the entire sample:
73
Table 10: Percentages of behaviour perpetrated: All sample
Behaviour once or twice sometimes often most of the time total

(%r, ) (%) (%) (%) (% )
remarks about looks 23.5 9.8 2.3 0.4 36.0
draw into personal

discussion 19.7 7.2 1.9 0.0 28.8
make sexual remarks 12.5 7.2 0.8 0.4 20.9
remarks about
someone's body 14.8 3.8 0.0 0.0 18.6
remarks on other's
sexual activities 12.9 3.8 0.0 0.0 16.7
make suggestive
comments 11.0 2.3 0.4 0.8 14.5
draw into talk about

sex life 72 1.1 0.0 0.4 8.7
caress someone
attractive 3.8 1.9 0.0 0.0 5.7
stroke someone's body 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5
offer to help colleague

in exchange for
sexual favours 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.8
imply better treatment

if respond to
invitations 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.8
fondle someone
attractive 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4
bribe in exchange for

sexual favours 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4
threaten colleague
to co-operate sexually 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4

if co-operate sexually 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4
74
Table 11: Percentages of behaviour experienced: All sample

(14) (c; ) (%) (9c) (9c)
told suggestive stories 23.5 23.5 11.0 5.7 63.7
told offensive sexual

remarks 16.3 15.2 4.9 2.7 39.1
heard sexist remarks 17.8 9.1 1.1 2.3 30.3
drawn into discussing

personal matters 14.8 10.2 1.9 1.5 38.4
heard offensive
comments about looks 14.8 7.6 0.4 0.4 23.2
colleague starring or
leering you 6.4 4.2 1.1 0.4 12.1
unwanted attempts to
touch you 9.8 1.9 0.0 0.0 11.7
experienced unwanted
6.1 3.4 0.4 0.8 10.7
sexual attention
7.6 2.7 0.4 0.0 10.7

seen offensive materials
attempts to establish
romantic relationship
3.4 1.1 0.0 0.4 4.9
with you
repeated requests
for dates 2.7 1.1 0.0 0.4 4.2
made it necessary for

you to respond to
invitations to be treated
3.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 3.4
well
threatened to be sexually
0.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 1.2
co-operative
0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4
stroke fondle you
threatened with poor

treatment if don't
0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4
co-operate sexually
treated you badly

0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4
for refusing sex
bribing in exchange for

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
sexual behaviour
implied promotion if
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
sexually co-operative
75
and experienced at least once, by staff category and gender:
Table 12: Percentages of behaviour perpetrated at least once by gender and staff
category
Behaviour male support male police female support female police
remarks about looks 37.8 45.3 27.4 33.3
draw into personal

discussion 17.1 28.3 30.6 42.9
make sexual remarks 22.0 24.5 17.7 19.0
stroke someone's body 1.2 1.9 0.0 3.2
make suggestive
comments 12.2 17.0 11.3 17.5

sex life 8.5 7.5 11.3 7.9
caress someone
attractive 6.1 3.8 1.6 11.1
remarks on other's
sexual activities 11.0 26.4 16.1 17.5
remarks about
someone's body 20.7 20.8 12.9 19.0
fondle someone
0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0
attractive

in exchange for
1.2 0.0 1.6 0.0
sexual favours

if respond to
invitations 1.2 0.0 1.6 0.0

0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0
sexual favours
threaten colleague
0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0
to co-operate sexually

if co-operate sexually 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0
76
Table 13: Percentages of behaviour experienced at least once by
gender and staff
category
M
told suggestive stories 64.6 60.4 56.5 73.0

personal matters 22.0 28.3 22.6 42.9

remarks 35.4 52.8 24.2 46.0
heard offensive
comments about looks 22.0 28.3 16.1 28.6
sexual attention 3.7 7.5 11.3 22.2
leering you 9.8 0.0 14.5 23.8
with you 2.4 5.7 6.5 7.9
seen offensive materials 13.4 13.2 4.8 11.1
heard sexist remarks 28.0 24.5 32.3 34.9
repeated requests
for dates 12 0.0 9.7 7.9

sexual behaviour 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
co-operative 2.4 0.0 3.2 0.0
touch you 8.5 3.8 16.1 19.0
stroke fondle you 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0
sexually co-operative 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0

you to respond to
well 3.7 5.7 1.6 4.8

treatment if don't
co-operate sexually 1. 0.0 1.6 0.0
treated you badly

for refusing sex 1.2 0.0 1.6 0.0
77
Tables 14 presents coping strategies utilised by targets by gender and staff categor`
Table 14: Percentages of coping strategies utilised by gender and staff category

(%r) (%) (%%) (7()
avoided perpetrator 68.3 58.5 69.4 65.1
careful not to make

perpetrator angry 59.8 52.8 59.7 42.9
told mysel f it was

not really important 72.0 60.4 51.8 60.3
talked about it
with someone I trusted 53.7 39.6 59.7 60.3
told perpetrator didn't

like what they were
doing 54.9 49.1 46.8 52.4
reported perpetrator 37.8 26.4 32.3 27.0
talked to someone about

what happened 51.2 39.6 56.5 57.1
made it clear to perpetrator

they were out of line 47.6 52.8 46.8 54.0
assumed perpetrator
meant well 70.7 69.8 71.0 65.1
was careful to stay out

of way 58.5 50.9 59.7 54.0
made up excuse
to be left alone 51.2 52.8 56.5 50.8
joked about what

happened 54.9 58.5 59.7 52.4
blamed myself 53.7 35.8 46.8 31.7
asked for advise 47.6 39.6 46.8 47.6
talked with a supervisor 40.2 24.5 35.5 33.3
told perpetrator how felt 45.1 49.1 46.8 39.7
tried to forget about it 58.5 41.5 51.6 46.0
arranged things so would

not have to deal with person 56.1 50.9 59.7 57.1
made a formal complaint 36.6 24.5 32.5 23.8
put up with behaviour 65.9 50.9 62.9 42.9
78
The means and standard deviations of demographic and
scale variables for the male
and female police sample examined in this study are shown in Tables 15 through 16
that follow:
Table 15: Means, Standard Deviations and Coefficient Alphas for Male Police
No.
Variable Items M SD a
Gender Harassment Experience 5 0.58 0.57 70

.
Unwanted Sexual Attention Experience 7 0.09 0.17 51
.
Gender Harassment Perpetrator 5 1.32 0.44 76
.
Unwanted Sexual Attention Perpetrator 5 1.09 0.20 76
.
Organisational Climate 18 2.04 0.77 95
.
Job Gender Context 3 6.31 1.62 35
.
Openness 10 3.45 0.47 64
.
Conscientiousness 9 4.05 0.57 79
.
Extraversion 8 3.33 0.70 80
.
Agreeableness 9 3.92 0.51 68
.
Neuroticism 8 2.35 0.73 77
.
Masculinity 8 3.73 0.50 73
.
Femininity 8 3.72 0.47 77
.
Androgyny 8 3.02 0.47 54
.
Attitudes Towards Sexual Harassment 13 5.01 0.70 75
.
Affective Disposition 13 2.39 0.31 80
.
Internal Coping 5 1.05 0.94 70
.
External Coping 15 0.49 0.52 86
.
General Health 12 1.04 0.50 92
.
Note. Means and standard deviations are presented on the metric of each scale's response scale; the
alpha for job gender context here is based on only three items and although very low, was included in
the analysis as a key variable in the present theoretical development yet never the less results here
should be interpreted with caution.
79
Table 16: Means, Standard Deviations and Coefficient Alphas for Female Police
No.

.
.
.
.
.
.
Openness 10 3.37 0.45 60
.
.
.
.
Neuroticisni 8 2.64 0.73 80
.
.
Androgyny 8 2.71 0.49 68
.
.
.
.
.
.
80
5.2.2 Scale Correlations 1
With respect to the male sample in table 17 below, perpetrating gender harassment
(higher scores indicate higher levels of perpetrating) was significantly and positively
correlated with perpetrating unwanted sexual attention (.47), which is not surprising
as these are scales from the same measure. Perpetrating gender harassment was also
positively correlated with experiencing gender harassment (.47) as well as with the
entire measure of experiencing sexual harassment (.40). This indicates an association

between perpetrating and experiencing gender harassment, where perpetrators are also
victims. As expected, perpetrating gender harassment was significantly and negatively

correlated with attitudes towards sexual harassment (-. 25). This indicates that people
that do not take issues of sexual harassment seriously are more likely to perpetrate
gender harassment.
Interestingly, the perpetrating unwanted sexual attention scale (higher scores indicate
higher levels of perpetrating) was significantly and negatively correlated with internal
coping (-. 21). This suggests that when male police perpetrators of unwanted sexual
attention are victims of sexual harassment themselves (this is known because one has
to be a victim in order to fill out the coping scale), the less they perpetrate, the more
likely they are to utilise internal coping strategies, that is the more they put up with
the behaviour and do not do much about it. Also, similarly to gender harassment,
unwanted sexual attention was negatively correlated with attitudes towards sexual
harassment (-. 24), indicating that people who do not take sexual harassment seriously
are more likely to perpetrate unwanted sexual attention.
The gender harassment victim scale (higher scores indicate higher levels of
experience), as expected, was positively correlated with job gender context (. 22)
Although significant, a number of correlations between variables with paths in the
SEM analysis are not as high as might be expected. Thus findings based on these
variables would have to be interpreted with care.
81
indicating that male police working in female dominated workgroups were more
likely to experience gender harassment. This scale was also negatively
correlated with
androgyny (-. 18) and masculinity (-. 17) such that male police were less likely to
experience gender harassment the higher they scored on androgyny and masculinity.
Not surprisingly, as these are both scales of the measure of sexual harassment
experience, there was a positive correlation between experiencing gender harassment

and experiencing unwanted sexual attention (.45), which indicates that people who
experience gender harassment are also likely to experience unwanted sexual attention.
Obviously, the total experience of sexual harassment measure was positively
correlated with its gender harassment experience subscale (. 90). Experiencing gender
harassment was significantly and positively correlated with internal coping (0.20) and
with psychological health (. 19). This suggests that people who experience gender
harassment utilise internal coping strategies and the more the gender harassment they
experience, the worse their psychological health. Perceived organisational tolerance
was also positively correlated with gender harassment experience (0.26). This
suggests that people who perceive their organisation as tolerating sexual harassment
are more susceptible to gender harassment.
The inztit,anted sexual attention victi»1 scale (higher scores indicate higher levels of
experience) has a significant and negative correlation (-. 19) with affective disposition
(higher scores indicate a more positive disposition) suggesting that male police with a
more negative disposition are more susceptible to unwanted sexual attention. Again,
as expected, this subscale of sexual harassment has a high positive correlation (.71)
with the total measure of sexual harassment. Internal coping has a positive correlation
(. 34) with experiencing unwanted sexual attention, indicating that unwanted sexual
attention victims utilise internal coping strategies. The negative correlation between
conscientiousness and experiencing unwanted sexual attention (-. 31) suggests that
male police who score low on conscientiousness are more likely to experience
unwanted sexual attention. The direction of this correlation appeared unexpected at

first, and as this relationship was supported in the victim model that follows, please
see the chapter discussion for further elaboration on this matter. The positive
correlation between neuroticism and experiencing unwanted sexual attention (. 17)
82
indicates that people who score high on neuroticism are more
susceptible to unwanted
sexual attention. Finally, as with gender harassment victims, male police who
experience unwanted sexual attention are more likely to suffer from adverse
psychological health outcomes as indicated by the correlation between these two
variables (. 17), while male police who perceive their organisation as tolerant of
harassment are more susceptible to unwanted sexual attention, as suggested by the
correlation (. 25) between these two variables.
Examining the coping scales, it appears that external coping had no significant
correlations with any other scale in the male police sample. With respect to internal
coping, androgyny was negatively associated with this type of coping (-. 32),
indicating that the less sexist male police were, the less likely they were to utilise
internal coping strategies when harassed. Also extraversion (-. 27) was negatively
associated with internal coping, suggesting that the less extraverted the men in this
sample were, the more they utilised internal coping strategies. The negative
correlation between conscientiousness and internal coping (-. 25), indicates that male
police high on conscientiousness (that is highly rule bound people) where less likely
to utilise internal coping strategies such as putting up with the harassment. Internal
coping was also associated with neuroticism (. 38), suggesting that the more neurotic
the victim, the more likely he (male police) was to blame himself for what happened
and put up with the behaviour. Both psychological health (. 62) and perceived
organisational tolerance (. 29) were positively correlated with internal coping, such
that male police that perceived their organisation to be tolerant of sexual harassment
used internal coping strategies and the more people used internal coping, the more
negative the consequences for their psychological health were. Finally, as expected,
the total experience of sexual harassment was positively associated (. 20) with
adversely affected psychological health.
With respect to the female sample in Table 18, the gender harassment perpetrator
scale was significantly and negatively correlated with job gender context (-. 19). This
indicates that female police, in a female dominated workgroup are more likely to
perpetrate gender harassment. Similarly to the male sample, gender harassment
perpetrating was correlated with unwanted sexual attention perpetrating (. 62).
Perpetrating gender harassment was also associated with experiencing gender
83
harassment (. 30), unwanted sexual attention (. 29), and hence with the total sexual
harassment experience measure (. 34).
Perpetrating unwanted sexual attention was negatively correlated with androgyny (-

23), suggesting that the more androgynous females in this sample were, the less
.
likely they were to perpetrate gender harassment. This relationship is not surprising as
androgyny has been associated with sexism in the sense that more androgynous
people are considered to be less sexist. Hence here the less sexist policewomen were,
the less likely they were to perpetrate unwanted sexual attention. Perpetrating
unwanted sexual attention was also associated with experiencing gender harassment
(. 36), experiencing unwanted sexual attention (.46), and hence with the total sexual
harassment experience measure (.46). In contrast to the male sample, there is a
significant correlation between the perpetrating unwanted sexual attention scale
(higher scores indicate higher levels of perpetrating) and internal coping, only this
time this relationship is in the opposite direction and the association is positive (. 21)
instead of negative. This suggests that when the female police perpetrators of
unwanted sexual attention are victims of sexual harassment themselves (again, this is
known because one has to be a victim in order to fill out the coping scale), the more
they perpetrate, the more likely they to

are utilise internal coping strategies.
In contrast to the male police sample where the gender harassment victim scale was
positively correlated with job gender context, for the female police, the gender
harassment victim scale was negatively correlated with job gender context (-. 20). This
means that female police were more likely to experience gender harassment the more
female dominated their workgroup was. The affective disposition scale was
negatively (-. 21) correlated with experiencing gender harassment, indicating that
female police with a positive disposition were less likely to experience gender
harassment. The gender harassment victim scale, as expected, was positively
correlated with the unwanted sexual attention victim scale (. 63) and of course with the
total measure of sexual harassment experience (. 87). In addition, experiencing gender

harassment in the female sample was positively associated with both internal (. 30)
and external (. 31) coping. The positive correlation between neuroticism and
harassment (. 34) suggests that female police that score high on
experiencing gender
neuroticism are more susceptible to gender harassment. Finally, being a victim of
84
gender harassment was positively associated with negative psychological health (.44)
and with the perception that the organisation tolerates sexual harassment (. 35). Hence
female police that experience gender harassment are more likely to
suffer adverse
psychological health outcomes and female police that believe that their organisation is
tolerant of sexual harassment are more susceptible to experiencing gender harassment.
The unwanted sexual attention victini scale for the female police was negatively
correlated with affective disposition (-. 24) suggesting that female police with a
positive disposition are less likely to experience unwanted sexual attention. The
negative correlation between androgyny and unwanted sexual attention experience (-
27) indicates that female police were more likely to experience unwanted sexual
.
attention, the less androgynous they were. As mentioned above, hi androgynous
people are considered to be less sexist. Hence it appears here that sexist female police
were more likely targets than non-sexist female police. Perhaps perpetrators consider
women with sexist attitudes as safer targets that will not report the harassment. In
addition, considering our earlier finding that sexist women are more likely
perpetrators of unwanted sexual attention, it is also possible that they are likely targets
exactly because they initiate these behaviours themselves as well. This is also
consistent with our above finding that there is a positive correlation (. 46) between
female police that perpetrate and female police that experience unwanted sexual
attention. There is also a positive correlation (. 63) between experiencing unwanted
sexual attention and gender harassment (which is consistent with the data in the male
sample), and hence the correlation between experiencing unwanted sexual attention
and the total measure of sexual harassment experience is (. 88). The positive
correlation between the unwanted sexual attention victim scale and external (. 53) as
well as internal (. 24) coping indicates that female police utilise both coping strategies.
Also the positive correlation between unwanted sexual attention and attitudes towards
sexual harassment (. 24) indicates, as expected, that female police that take the issue of
sexual harassment seriously, are more susceptible to unwanted sexual attention.

Neuroticism was also positively correlated with the experience of unwanted sexual
attention (. 42), suggesting that females that score high on neuroticism were more
vulnerable to unwanted sexual attention. The relationship between neuroticism and
the experience of sexual harassment is examined in more detail in the discussion
section of this chapter. Finally, as with gender harassment, being a victim of
85
unwanted sexual attention was positively associated with negative psychological
health (.49) and with the perception that the organisation tolerates
sexual harassment
(. 28). Hence when female police believe that their organisation is tolerant
of sexual
harassment, they are more susceptible to unwanted sexual attention
and when they
experience unwanted sexual attention, they are more likely to suffer adverse
psychological outcomes.
With respect to coping strategies, external coping was negatively associated with job
gender context (-. 24), suggesting that female police that work in male dominated
workgroups are less likely to utilise external coping and hence they are less likely to
report the behaviour or confront the harasser etc. Also androgyny is negatively
associated with external coping (-. 29), indicating that the less sexist female police
were, the less likely they were to utilise external coping strategies when harassed.
Both external (. 52) and internal (. 35) coping were positively associated with the total
measure of sexual harassment experience (this includes all behavioural categories of

harassment), indicating that female police in our sample who experience sexual
harassment are likely to utilise both coping strategies. External coping alone was also
associated with the attitudes towards sexual harassment scale (. 35), suggesting that
female police that take sexual harassment seriously are more likely to confront the
harasser and report the behaviour. The positive correlation between neuroticism and
both external (. 31) and internal (. 33) coping means that female police that score high
on neuroticism are more likely to utilise both types of coping strategies. External (. 21)
as well as internal (. 48) coping are associated with negative psychological outcomes,
although the latter correlation suggests that perhaps internal coping was more
damaging. The correlations between external (. 28) as well as internal (. 33) coping and
perceived organisational tolerance indicate that the more people perceived their
organisation as tolerating sexual harassment, the more of both types of coping they
did. Interestingly, psychological health in the female police sample was also
negatively associated (-. 20) with job gender context, suggesting that the more female
dominated the workaroup of policewomen, the worse the outcomes on their
psychological health. As expected, the total experience of sexual harassment measure
was positively correlated (. 52) with psychological health, indicating that being a
victim of sexual harassment in general has negative consequences one one's
psychological health. Finally, psychological health was positively correlated (. 38)
86
with perceived organisational tolerance. This indicates that female police that
perceive their organisation as tolerant of sexual harassment suffer from negatively
affected psychological health.
87
O
r-4 O
O
C.
C3 as
0
o CO
G6
o 'C) CO
0 0 0
Q o
r-- O CO
O LO r-- O
0 o co
rL
O - ,- ca rt
O '[) N f-
4 O o 0
K
O ^ Q
O C) N-
ft pp
-
O 'O M N
O
K
K
O M '
O O ' T O
O
a' N
N OD [- O N N
K
Cl N 96 Qi aD LO
O N 4? co M M
O M N O
CO
CO
K K
K ^
r-
K K
C3
ry CO
Ö ý O
O N 4-}
K K
OO O 00 N 'li
ON -t I[i
CO 9p
M
4 'ý O M
KK K K
K K
cD 4J ICJ 'ýi OD 9D
<M Lcl .0
O O N C-4
Cl Cl) M
O CO V' N N N-
OM OD N- C4
M O Cl) N- 9D C') O N-
a a Cl r-
N, o Q
;t d LO In co LO OD Cl)
Co O_ 47 d' N IC? CSC' CO O C'0 CO
' _ G O O O
K K K K K K
ýip K K
'] rM OT O Cl M
ýi R M CO
O C-1 N Cl) CO CO qp
N co Cl)
N MO O N O O N
'7 Co O G7 {`7 47 9Q N- N- 47 06
O r-- V N- N-
110 pp V NN O
E O O O Cl O O O O O O O O
K K
h
C'? K K
LO M N i0 CD
r r- C-4
l? OP GP
47
0
cz 'ý N O
f:
O M
O
O
OCD
O
D M
M
f+.
.. r 'O
K K
K K
K ,
CO Co co
C3 N CO O
CO O CO CO O co - . - UD 47
If N- CO M1 co ,- O OP CO Cl) OD O 0)
N iV O O O M O O Cl O N
K
K
K K K K
K K K
41
ýa A CO '--' O '[7 M N
LT N tiý ti?i ? k) Lý aJ as CO o as Co. o
O M O M N Cl
9.0
LO O CO C') CO C)
OD 4? P- N O - r M
w V ýn
a
O
O
OD
D C
O-
O
O
OO
CO O O N N N
p
M
Cl
Y)
O
K
K
{)
Imo. N co V'
O
'Cr CO tß m ') M
10
47 4? O6 r y' N ap N OD t(1 N
C3 o0 ,ý ö
ca oa o 0 0 0
U
kA
4} 'U
C 0
l a C_ i
_} 10 41 C
=P
1
ca 1ý a 4
m
s L - r a t a
y1 i iý
N
Qý
F1'-
S)
-I .11 fV N
`L t vi ` } L
di
V}
U
U
ý: ý
c
ct c n >ý m }pC+
r° 12
LL
2 1L E äl Y
- SI '
i
CL C Lv _, 'U
C
1.0 o ci 24,} al a a z i Ü
.. r 1 ai Ö U- U
N
GCS rt a; T.
E-ý x
co
ry
Oi
ýJ
tJ
7r '0 t: n
a
fl
0
K K
K K
r-- 0 CV
0
a M
CÎ
IC, Cl r-- Co
4) N
Im Co
0
0
M C? ýý
K
K
C3
0 cn
Cl) C: 1 O
0 O
K
Co CI)
CO
Co. ,7-
N
l17
O O
co Co ti
C-.1
ca M
m
M M
LC7
0
K K
K
cm t
ro Co Co
c: i
Q r-
fl O O
K
IC) cc
{î S'?
0 M CSI
C-1 ti)
r--
Im
(-1
M N
Q Q N
C? 0 a G
O 4) 47 Co
c-I OD Cl)
O r-
4% o-I LO
CO
O O ti co
0
{-J
K
K K
cm Cl)
K
r- {y Co
00 f--
f--
Q tJ
Ci ry
Î
r-- {-4 rI
r- {-4 ft m Co a
cl, r~ a c-a CD r
Cý1 r^
VJ
KK
co co co r- cc, C-1
co M
4!
li Cl O Q sý
0 4i
K K K
K li K Y. K
Cl) L CID ^ý
co ci
Nt
M
L7 CV
co r-
Q Q 47,
Q 0 M ti'J
E
K K K
K K
KK KK K Krny
K
Kw
co lC) co LC> 2V 4J CD
co r~ a'
co LLS '¢
I0 IC)
O ö q
Q
ci iL}
its
0 Lcý
K
K
K
K
K
K K K K
JM
fl OD O
ra l7 ra r') M C-1 Co
43
IN
a
C"1 QO LV
0 M 'It G
42
1: K K
Y. 4: K
ýJ
rý - CD
V
ý1
Ci
ýr Q7 CU T
47
rte.
47
a
N
C7
C-1
{lo
t-4
ý} cy rJ q Q 0
Q
41
L lA
L1 V1
L L (ý
L1 41 IA
C
t9 CL
a
IZ
t_
6
a E 0
Qý
Sý r C U
B- a kA a 0
a ä
i C
_
S1 U clu U
m E F5 ý i o0
L S L`1 0 C
CC In E Sý rl
=z ea n LI a O
L a
LEI I`? LO
4? ýU Imo.
ti ý=1 :V
x
5.2.3 Analysis of Perpetrator Model
To test the perpetrator model Figure 4, structural equation modelling was employed
using LISREL 8.3 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1999). As discussed in the method chapter,
due to the size of the samples a single pre-existing manifest indicator for each latent
construct was used. Specifically, for gender harassment and unwanted sexual
attention, the Gender Harassment and Unwanted Sexual Attention subscales of the
Sexual Experiences Questionnaire - Revised (SEQ-R) were used respectively. For
neuroticism, extraversion and agreeableness, the Neuroticism, Extraversion and

Agreeableness subscales of the BFI were used respectively. For Masculinity and
Femininity, the Masculinity and Femininity subscales of the PAQ were used. For
perceived organisational tolerance, the Organisational Tolerance for Sexual
Harassment Inventory as a whole (including all its subscales) was used as one
indicator. For job gender context and attitudes towards sexual harassment, the Job
Gender Context and Attitudes Towards Sexual Harassment Inventory measures were
used respectively.
90
-Z
^d
O
O
M
Gý
1260
4
Gý
bJ0
According to the proposed theoretical framework, some combination
of organisational
and personality variables are expected to predict each type of harassment, although
there was no clear idea as to what exactly this combination should be. Thus the
strategy adopted was to enter a combination of possible personality and organisational
variables in the original models for the male and female sample that according to the
hypothesis could lead to harassment (rather than to assume no model at
all that would
be contrary to the present theory). The process that follows is called
a specification
search (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996) and is used in such exploratory situations where
the aim of the procedure is to find a model that fits the data well and where all
parameters have a substantial meaning. Following this, it is important to cross-
validate the results of this exploratory work on a different set of data (as described in
the next chapter).
The original models were run removing insignificant paths one at a time based on
theory first and then their t-values (eliminating paths with the lowest t-values first,
although checking to make sure that the order in which these were removed did not
change the end result). Tables 19 and 20 present details of paths that were removed
and corresponding fit indices. The paths shown in Tables 19 and 20 were estimated by
the method of maximum likelihood (ML). This was used because it is more effective
with smaller samples and is less influenced by scale of measurement. This also
requires normally distributed observed variables but normalisation (transformation of

data to approximate the normal distribution) has taken place and was preferred over
other methods such as weighted least squares (WLS) that require very large samples,
and unweighted least squares (ULS) that are considerably influenced by scale of
measurement. All other elements of the B and IF matrices were fixed at zero.
92
Table 19: Specification Search Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Male Police
Perpetrator
Model 22 df RMSEA RMR AGFI
1. Model (1) -Original- 0.31 2 0.000 0.005 0.99

2. Model (1) with path in to ghp removed 0.31 3 0.000 0.005 0.99
3. (2) with path e to ghp removed 0.33 4 0.000 0.006 0.99
4. (3) with path in to asap removed 0.40 5 0.000 0.007 0.99
5. (4) with path otshi to usap removed 0.44 6 0.000 0.007 0.99
6. (5) with path ii to usap removed 1.11 7 0.000 0.014 0.99
7. (6) with path jgc to ghp removed 2.37 8 0.000 0.020 0.98
8. (7) with path jgc to usap removed 3.34 9 0.000 0.025 0.97
9. (8) with path a to ghp removed 6.17 10 0.000 0.034 0.95
10. (Y) with path a to usap removed 7.26 11 0.000 0.039 0.95
11. (10) with path otshi to ghp removed 10.37 12 0.000 0.042 0.94
Notc. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; RMR = root mean square residual; AGFI =
adjusted goodness-of-fit index; in = masculinity; ghp = gender harassment perpetrator; c=
extraversion; ursop = unwanted sexual attention perpetrator; otshi = organisational tolerance for sexual
harassment; n= neuroticism; jgc = job gender context; n= agreeableness.
93
Table 20: Specification Search Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Female Police
Perpetrator
Model x2 df RMSEA RMR AGFI
1. Model (1) -Original- 1.22 1 0.042 0.009 0.90

2. Model (1) with path atd to usap removed 1.22 2 0.000 0.009 0.95
3. (2) with path,f to usap removed 1.22 3 0.000 0.009 0.97
4. (3) with path f to ghp removed 1.27 4 0.000 0.009 0.97
5. (4) with path jgc to asap removed 1.38 5 0.000 0.010 0.98
6. (5) with path otv/ii to 11Up removed 2.07 6 0.000 0.015 0.97
7. (6) with path otshi to ghp removed 2.48 7 0.000 0.019 0.97
8. (7) with path a to ghp removed 5.13 8 0.000 0.028 0.95
9. (8) with path e to ghp removed 5.44 9 0.000 0.028 0.95
10. (9) with path e to usap removed 6.42 10 0.000 0.032 0.95
11. (10) with path n to usap removed 8.48 11 0.000 0.033 0.94
Note. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; RMR = root mean square residual; AGFI =
adjusted goodness-of-lit index; ot(I = attitudes towards sexual harassment; asap = unwanted sexual
attention perpetrator; f= femininity; ghp = gender harassment perpetrator; jgc = job gender context;
oi.shl' = organisatrional tolerance towards sexual harassment; a= agreeableness; e= extraversion; n=
neuroticism.
A variety of fit measures were examined, such as the chi-square to degrees of freedom
ratio; the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA); the root mean square
residual (RMR); the adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI); and the standardized
residuals. As you can see in Figures 5 and 6 the fit for the final models for both the
male and female samples are good. The final model for the male sample has a chi-
square/df ratio of 0.864, p-value of 0.583, RMSEA 0.00, RMR 0.042, AGFI 0.94, and
the highest standardized residual in absolute value is 2.05. Last but not least, the R`
values for gender harassment (. 13) and unwanted sexual attention (. 13) in this model
are low suggesting a low percentage of variance accounted for in these and hence
findings here need be interpreted cautiously. For the female sample, the final model
has a chi-square/df ratio of 0.770, p-value of 0.669, RMSEA 0.00, RMR 0.033, AGFI
0.94, and the highest standardized residual in absolute value is 1.82. Finally, as with
the male model, R2 values for gender harassment and unwanted sexual attention were
again low (at 10 and 12 respectively) thus again suggesting that findings here need
. .
be interpreted with care.
94
". J
r"-
.: r
nJ
YC.
O
U
E
L
i..
'l.
Cý.
Z. a/ îl
ii C)
C CC
I-
r
V
U
O
Q-.
^"J
U
ýJ
c
E
aN U
cN r
M cin
0 r_
cu
2 U
O
N r
N T
co
O
N
V
r_
.i
-rj
N_
U
U
G
U
O
r
r
.J
v:
G
v_
O
C
Er
r
t
UG
a, k m
U
Si
0
1-
ý w Z Z
5.2.4 Analysis of Victim Model
Again due to the exploratory nature of the present study, a combination of possible
personality and organisational variables were entered in the original models for the
reale and female sample with no fixed idea as to what exactly this combination should
be and the original models were run removing insignificant paths one at a time
according to theory and their t-values (eliminating paths with the lowest t-values first,
while also checking to make sure that the order in which these were removed did not
change the end result). Tables 21 and 22 present details of paths that were removed
and corresponding fit indices. The paths shown in Tables 21 and 22 were estimated by
the method of maximum likelihood; all other elements of the B and IF matrices were
fixed at zero.
97
0
7E
Y
.2 e
9
got
n
0 CL
0-
1-
m
CL
c 0
a g i
m
C
a)
a)
ýrcG
9
aý
^d
O
..,
U
.,..,
Cd
Lý
bA
..,
x_
Table 21: Specification Search Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Male Police Victim
Model x df RMSEA RMR AGFI-
1. Model (1) -Original- 0.19 1 0.000 0.003 0.99

2. Model (1) with path irif to Usa%,
removed 0.20 2 0.000 0.004 0.99
3. (2) with path jgc to uscn' removed 0.22 3 0.000 0.004 0.99
4. (3) with path f to usav removed 0.51 4 0.000 0.007 0.99
5. (4) with path /i to itscn' rcmoved 1.01 5 0.000 0.012 0.99
6. (5) with path f to gu i' removed 1.78 6 0.000 0.015 0.98
7. (6) with path c to ghi' removed 3.05 7 0.000 0.018 0.97
8. (7) with path o to ghi' removed 4.45 8 0.000 0.023 0.96
adjusted goodness-of-fit index; mf = androgyny; usaiv = unwanted sexual attention victim; jgc = job
gender context; f= femininity; n= neuroticism; ghv = gender harassment victim; c=
conscientiousness; o= openness.
Table 22: Specification Search Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Female Police Victim
Model x` df RMSEA RMR AGFI
1. Model (1) -Original- 1.10 1 0.029 0.009 0.91
2. Model (1) with path o to usui' removed 1.11 2 0.000 0.009 0.96
3. (2) with path f to usav removed 1.11 3 0.000 0.009 0.97
4. (3) with path nrf to uscti' removed 1.35 4 0.000 0.012 0.97
5. (4) with path c to ghv removed 1.43 5 0.000 0.012 0.98
6. (5) with path o to ghv removed 3.13 6 0.000 0.017 0.96
7. (6) with path to ghv removed 4.77 7 0.000 0.019 0.95

,f
8. (7) with path jgc to g/ti' removed 6.90 8 0.000 0.026 0.93
9. (8) with path jgc to usnv removed 8.24 9 0.000 0.032 0.93
10. (9) with path c to usui' removed 11.44 10 0.034 0.036 0.91
11. (10) with path otshi to usav removed 13.36 11 0.041 0.041 0.91
index; o= openness; usav = unwanted sexual attention victim; J= femininity;
adjusted
goodness-of-fit harassment jgc job
mf = androgyny; c= conscientiousness; ghi' = gender victim; = gender context
otshi = organisational tolerance for sexual harassment.
99
The final model for the male sample (Figure 8) has a chi-square/df ratio of 0.556, p-
value of 0.814, RMSEA 0.00, RMR 0.023, AGFI 0.96, and the highest standardized
residual in absolute value is 1.40. The R2 values for gender harassment (.42) and
unwanted sexual attention (. 40) in this model are better than those for the perpetrator
models, although still low especially considering there are more predictors here, and
thus findings here need be interpreted cautiously. For the female sample, the final
model (Figure 9) has a chi-square/df ratio of 1.214, p-value of 0.270, RMSEA 0.041,
RMR 0.041, AGFI 0.91, and the highest standardized residual in absolute value is
1.82. Finally again R2 values for gender harassment and unwanted sexual attention in
this model are at .22 and .42 respectively.
100
r
r
:J
.j
E
U
U
ac
W E
a N
Cc ci
nQ ý
M
M
M O
,I
ýi )
C
0 k C
as
c C3 0
tcs
t»
4
f
c
U
11.0
U
C
O ý.. U
E U
N
C
ýý r
u V
0 M .J
aý
U
aý cr) 'l.
u p
C
O
a
d
A dplý
00
r
bA ^J
ýw
L
CA
i7r
rJ
r_
'J
`J
'J
c-I
r-
^J
r
L C
CD I,
W E C
a C C
) RXC
G 0
Q%cu CD CD I,
C
2 ti
CO r
O
r_
p
.r
r1
`M l r
T
7J
m J
ýu J
c
dý J
>: ýt,.
0
f
äü ný
h, r
I++
(o 0)
r
r- r Q,
V
f
a
0 (J
ä
Y
C
(L
s
0
i t1
E O
U'
U i r
O
:'7
i..
Qý
It z rJ
aý 0)
'd 0
O cl-
E.
C
LL O
, 'Q f
V
: 'I
u rý
l
.V
y 'l.
VC
W
cý i, l-
aý
u
Iý --
O
Cý.
Oý
GA ai
A single pre-existing manifest indicator for each latent construct was used to test the
outcome model in Figure 10. For the total experience of sexual harassment, the SEQ-
R as a whole (including all of its subscales: Gender Harassment, Unwanted Sexual
Attention, and Sexual Coercion) was used as one indicator. For internal and external
coping, the Internal and External subscales of the CHQ were used respectively. For
perceived organisational tolerance, the Organisational Tolerance for Sexual

Harassment Inventory as a whole (including all its subscales) was used as one
indicator. Finally for disposition and psychological health, the Affective Disposition
and General Health Questionnaire measures were used respectively.
103
Z
Z
ö
-1-
w
As with the previous models in this study insignificant paths were removed one at
time and only when this was not contrary to theory, again eliminating paths with the
lowest t-values first, while also checking to make sure that the order in which these
were removed did not change the end result. Tables 23 and 24 present details of paths
that were removed and corresponding fit indices. The paths shown in Tables 23 and
24 were estimated by the method of maximum likelihood; all other elements of the B
r
and matrices were fixed at zero.
105
Table 23: Specification Search Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Male Police Outcomes
1. Model (1) -Original- 0.05 1 0.000 0.003 1.00

2. (1) with path disp to icop removed 0.19 2 0.000 0.007 1.00
3. (2) with path ecop to gliq removed 0.40 3 0.000 0.009 0.99
4. (3) with path otshi to ghq removed 0.89 4 0.000 0.013 0.99
5. (4) with path otshi to e removed 2.20 5 0.000 0.024 0.98
6. (5) with path disp to e removed 4.12 6 0.000 0.034 0.96
7. (6) with path disp to ghq removed 6.85 7 0.000 0.045 0.95
adjusted goodness-of-fit index; disp = disposition; icop = internal coping; ecop = external coping; ghq
= general health questionnaire; ot.v/ii = organisational tolerance towards sexual harassment.
Table 24: Specification Search Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Female Police

Outcomes
Model x' df RMSEA RMR AGFI
1. Model (1) -Original- 0.38 1 0.000 0.007 0.98
2. (1) with path disp to icop removed 0.55 2 0.000 0.010 0.98
3. (2) with path disp to ecop removed 1.08 3 0.000 0.017 0.98
4. (3) with path otshi to ghq removed 2.68 4 0.000 0.023 0.96
5. (4) with path disp to ghq removed 5.10 5 0.012 0.036 0.95
6. (5) with path otshi to ecop removed 7.56 6 0.045 0.046 0.93
adjusted goodness-of-fit index; disp = disposition; icop = internal coping; ecop = external coping; otshi
= organisational tolerance towards sexual harassment; ghq = general health questionnaire.
06
The final model for the male sample (Figure 11) has a chi-square/df ratio of 0.978, p-
value of 0.444, RMSEA 0.000, RMR 0.045, AGFI 0.95, and the highest standardized
residual in absolute value is 1.66. The R2 values for psychological health. internal
coping and external coping are at . 47, 23, and 046 respectively suggesting a
. .
particularly low percentage of variance accounted for in external coping and thus
findings should be interpreted with care. For the female sample, the final model
(Figure 12) has a chi-square/df ratio of 1.26, p-value of 0.271, RMSEA 0.045, RMR
0.046, AGFI 0.93, and the highest standardized residual in absolute value is 2.13. The
R2 values here indicate that 37 % of the variance is accounted for in psychological

health, 27 % of the variance is accounted for in internal coping and 23 % of the
variance is accounted for in external coping.
107
rJ
r-r
cß
C.
) C
Ö
a)
O
0) O
O O
U V
a) U_
w
14-
N
O
O V
T '.d
O
ö
N Q
O
T CO (1)
1
,..
I
U
CY) 14-
C
s. r
o
-U
Z.
10
(V
Z a
s..
b.A x
r
C
r
"J
r_
^J
^J
rJ
i-
r
r-
I.
V
r_
ti
1,
Cý
f
C
U
O
U
b
O
r-
r
a;
E
f
wC
E
O ýJ
f
r
r
E L C.)
4ww
C
iý r-
LL
bA
^,
5.3 Results
Findings from the perpetrator, victim and outcome models are presented below

With respect to the model in Figure 5, it appears that attitudes towards sexual
harassment is the only variable that predicts perpetrating in the male sample
regardless of the type of harassment. The path from attitudes towards gender
harassment is -. 35 and the path from attitudes towards unwanted sexual attention is
-
36. This negative relationship indicates that male police officers and support staff are
.
more likely to perpetrate both gender harassment and unwanted sexual attention when
they believe these behaviours are more acceptable and less likely when they perceive
these behaviours to be less acceptable.
In the female sample, as shown in Figure 6, the path from attitudes towards gender
harassment is -0.22, indicating that female police officers and support staff are more
likely to perpetrate gender harassment when they find the behaviour more acceptable.
The path from job gender context to gender harassment is -0.26, indicating that the
more the women in their workgroup the more likely female police officers and
to
support staff are perpetrate gender harassment. Finally, the path from agreeableness
towards unwanted sexual attention is -0.34, indicating that the more agreeable police
women in our sample are, the less likely they are to perpetrate unwanted sexual
attention.
5.3.2 Victim Model
For the male sample, according to the model shown in Figure 8, the path from
perceived organisational tolerance to gender harassment is 0.33, indicating that the
male police officers and support staff in our sample are more likely to experience
gender harassment if they perceive the organisation to be more tolerant of sexual

harassment. The path from job gender context to gender harassment is 0.46. This
means that male police officers and support staff in our sample are more likely to
become victims of gender harassment, the more female dominated their workgroup is.
The path from neuroticism to gender harassment is 0.31, indicating that male police
high in neuroticism are more likely to experience gender harassment. Also, the path
from conscientiousness to unwanted sexual attention is -0.57, indicating a negative

relationship between conscientiousness and experiencing unwanted sexual attention.
The path between openness and unwanted sexual attention is 0.33. This
suggests a
positive relationship between openness and becoming a victim of unwanted sexual
attention. Finally, the path from perceived organisational tolerance to unwanted
sexual attention is 0.26. This implies that male police are more likely to experience
unwanted sexual attention when they perceive their organisation to be more tolerant
of harassment.
For the female sample, as shown in Figure 9, the path from perceived organisational
tolerance to gender harassment is 0.19, suggesting that female police officers and
support staff in our sample are more likely to experience gender harassment if they
perceive the organisation to be more tolerant of sexual harassment. Also the path from
neuroticism to gender harassment is 0.37 and the path from neuroticism to unwanted
sexual attention is 0.64, indicating that female police high on neuroticism could be
more vulnerable to experiencing both gender harassment and unwanted sexual
attention.
The above findings seem to provide support for both the work of Fitzgerald and her
colleagues (Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand, and Magley, 1997), who found that
sexual harassment was predicted by organizational climate and job gender context, as
well as for the work of Pryor and his colleagues (Pryor, 1987; Pryor, Giedd, &
Williams, 1995; Pryor & Stoller, 1994) who have argued that sexual harassment is the
result of a combination of personal and situational factors. In addition, the present
study goes one step further in its attempt to locate antecedents of the harassment
according to type.
5.3.3 Outcomes Model

For the reale sample, according to Figure 11, being a victim of sexual harassment was
found to lead to both internal (self-blame and putting up with the harassment) as well
as external (such as confronting the harasser and reporting a behaviour) coping
strategies, as indicated by the path from sexual harassment to external coping (0.21)
and from sexual harassment to internal coping (0.30). The path from internal coping
to psychological health conditions is 0.69. This suggests that self-blame, putting up
with the behaviour and doing little to confront the harasser is associated with negative
psychological outcomes. Finally the path from perceived organisational tolerance to
internal coping is 0.30. This is an indication that the more victims
perceive their
organisation as being tolerant of sexual harassment, the more likely they are to use
internal coping strategies.
As shown in Figure 12, with respect to the female sample, both internal as well as
external coping are related to psychological health, although the estimate for the path
from internal coping to psychological health (0.58) is much higher than the estimate
for the path from external coping to psychological health (0.17). Again, being a victim
of sexual harassment was found to lead to both types of coping, where the path from
sexual harassment to external coping was 0.48 and the path from sexual harassment to
internal coping was 0.38. Finally, as was the case with the male sample, the path from
perceived organisational tolerance to internal coping (0.27) suggests that the more
victims perceive their organisation as being tolerant of sexual harassment, the more
likely they are to use internal coping strategies.
As a reminder, we examined outcomes as related to the total experience of sexual
harassment, instead of examining the effects of particular types of harassment,

because the different categories of the behaviour typically co-occur and it is not
possible to examine the effects of one type of harassment on its own (Schneider,
Swan, & Fitzgerald, 1997).
5.4 Summary of key findings
In sum, for the perpetrator and victim models, the data begin to shed some light with
respect to the differential determinants of the different types of harassment and the
role of personality within these while separate patterns are also emerging between our
male and female samples.
Attitudes towards sexual harassment was the only predictor of male perpetrating. Both
gender harassment and unwanted sexual attention in the male sample were predicted
by attitudes alone without any organisational or other personality influences. Attitudes
towards sexual harassment also predicted perpetrating in the female sample, but only
for gender harassment. For both samples, this relationship was such that police
11-1
officers and support staff who took the issue of sexual harassment less seriously were
more likely to perpetrate.
Female police were also more likely to perpetrate gender harassment the more the
women in their workgroup and this is consistent with our findings for male victims as
discussed below, where male police were more likely to become victims of gender
harassment the more female dominated there workgroup was.
Another interesting finding for the female sample was the negative path from
agreeableness towards unwanted sexual attention. Agreeableness as a personality trait

has been associated with niceness, compliance and social desirability and hence this
relationship indicates that female police officers and support staff who are nicer, more
compliant (especially having in mind the nature of the rule bound police organisation)
and who like to do socially desirable things are less likely to perpetrate unwanted
sexual attention which includes behaviours that are more severe compared to gender
harassment.
Male police who were more likely to become victims of gender harassment had the
following characteristics: they worked in female dominated workgroups (as just
mentioned above), they perceived their organisation as being more tolerant of sexual
harassment and they were high on neuroticism. Neuroticism also predicted
experiencing both gender harassment as well as unwanted sexual attention for the
female sample. Neurotic individuals are in general more prone to various stressors,
and as harassment is a form of stressor, it is not difficult to see how this can predict
harassment here.
Male police more likely to become victims of unwanted sexual attention, also
perceived their organisation as being more tolerant of sexual harassment, and were
high on the personality traits of openness and low on conscientiousness. Openness has
been associated with uninhibitness and it could be that this characteristic makes
people more approachable or even possibly invites sexual behaviour towards them.
This could also explain why openness here is found to lead to unwanted sexual
in particular, as this type of harassment is more sexual in nature (i. e.
attention
touching) compared to gender harassment (which often involves mostly sexist
III
behaviours such as graffiti and pin-ups, and hence is
not necessarily directed towards
a person) and it involves behaviours which are more serious. The negative path from
conscientiousness towards unwanted sexual attention appears a bit problematic at first
look. This trait has been associated with dutifulness, competence
and self-discipline
and one would think that these people would want to get on with their job and that
they should be more bothered by and more likely to label behaviours as harassment.
Hence one would expect that people who lack conscientiousness are less
concerned
with issues of harassment and are less likely to identify unwanted sexual attention.
However, when one takes into consideration the nature of our sample being a police
organisation, it is possible to see how less rule bound individuals could react within a
highly rule-bound organisation. Among females, gender harassment as well as
unwanted sexual attention were predicted by neuroticism, while gender harassment

here was also predicted perceived organisational tolerance.
With respect to outcomes, for both the male and female sample, the data indicates that
people use both internal (i. e. self blame and putting up with the behaviour) and
external (i. e. confronting the harasser, talking about the incident with a friend and
reporting the behaviour) coping strategies in response to sexual harassment. Results
also indicate that in both samples, when people perceive that their organisation
tolerates the harassment, they utilise internal coping strategies. This has particularly
significant implications when one takes into account the next result, which indicates
that internal coping leads to adverse psychological health. More specifically, results
indicate that for the male police, internal coping adversely affects psychological
health. For the female sample, internal as well as external coping lead to negatively
affected psychological health, although the path from internal coping to psychological
health (0.58) compared to the path from external coping to psychological health (0.17)
seemed to suggest that the first has a much stronger influence than the latter. Hence
when victims believe that their organisation tolerates sexual harassment, they are not
likely to turn to the organisation for help and confront or report the harasser. Rather,
they engage in self-blame and put up with the behaviour, and this in turn has negative
consequences on their psychological health.
Finally, as discussed earlier, the contribution of affective disposition with respect to
outcomes, was examined against that of sexual harassment. Hence according to
114
Figures 1I and 12 the relationships between disposition and internal coping, external
coping and psychological health were tested, and as shown in tables 23 and 24 all
paths from affective disposition were found to be insignificant in both the male and
female samples.
Once again, the above study was exploratory in nature and the results at this stage
should be treated with caution. The following chapter presents an attempt to cross-
validate these findings onto another sample that is also more gender balanced in
nature compared to the present male dominated police sample.
115
CHAPTER 6
RESULTS OF STUDY TWO
6.1 Introduction
Chapter 5 presented the development of exploratory models for perpetrators,

victims
and outcomes of sexual harassment from data collected within a police sample. These
begin to shed some light with respect to differential antecedents for the different types
of harassment and the role of personality within these.
In particular, with respect to perpetrating, attitudes were the only variables that
predicted perpetrating in males regardless of type of harassment. Thus males such that
males were more likely to perpetrate any type of sexual harassment the more
acceptable they found these behaviours to be. Females were more likely to perpetrate
gender harassment the more acceptable they considered harassment to be and the
more women there were in their workgroup. Also the more agreeable women were,
the Icss likely they were to perpetrate unwanted sexual attention.
Males were more likely targets of gender harassment the more they perceived their
organisation as tolerant of harassment, the more female dominated their workgroup
was and the higher their neuroticism score. With respect to experiencing unwanted
sexual attention amongst men, there was a negative relationship between
conscientiousness and experiencing unwanted sexual harassment such that the more
conscientious a man working in the police was the less likely they were to experience
unwanted sexual attention and visa versa. There was a positive relationship between
openness and experiencing unwanted sexual attention such that the higher scored on
openness the more likely they were to experience unwanted sexual attention and visa
versa. Finally males were more likely to experience unwanted sexual attention the
more they perceived their organisation as tolerant of sexual harassment. Females were
more likely targets of gender harassment the more they perceived their organisation as
116
tolerant of harassment, and were more vulnerable to experiencing both gender
harassment and unwanted sexual attention the higher they scored
on neuroticism.
Regarding outconic's, for males, being a victim of sexual harassment lead to both
internal (i. e. self blame and putting up with the behaviour) as well as external (such
as
confronting the harasser and reporting the behaviour) coping strategies. The more
male victims perceived their organisation as tolerant of harassment, the more likely
they were to utilise internal coping strategies that in turn were associated with
negative psychological consequences. Among females, experiencing sexual

harassment also lead to both internal as well as external coping, while the more
females victims perceived their organisation as tolerant of sexual harassment again the
more likely they were to utilise internal coping strategies. Finally both internal as well
as external coping was associated with negative psychological outcomes.
The purpose of the present chapter was to confirm the above findings from a male
dominated organisation, in a more gender-balanced and liberal organisation such as a
University sample. This study involved male and female academic and support staff
of a University organisation in the U. K.
6.2 Analysis
The present section will first describe the sample characteristics followed by the scale
correlations and then the perpetrator, victim, and outcome models.
6.2.1 Sample Characteristics
The present sample consisted of 118 males and 84 females, of these there were 34
male and 40 female support staff, as well as of 84 male and 44 female academics.
The mean age for support staff was 42.6 (standard deviation 10.9). The mean age for
academic staff was 43.9 (standard deviation 11.2). The mean age for male support
staff was 44.9 (standard deviation 10.1), for female support staff 40.5 (standard
deviation 1 1.3), for male academics 45.3 (standard deviation 11.6) and for female
academics 41.2 (standard deviation 10.1). Tables 25 and 26 that follow present
percentages of harassing behaviour perpetrated and experienced in the entire sample:
117
Table 25: Percentages of behaviour perpetrated: All sample

(YO (%) (%) (%) (97()
remarks about looks 20.7 9.4 2.0 0.0 3-1.1
draw into personal

discussion 21.2 6.4 2.0 0.5 30.1
make sexual remarks 9.4 3.9 2.5 0.0 15.8
remarks about
someone's body 10.8 3.4 1.5 0.0 15.7
make suggestive
comments 7.9 4.4 0.5 0.0 12.8
caress someone
attractive 10.3 0.5 1.0 0.0 11.8
remarks on other's
sexual activities 7.9 3.0 0.5 0.0 11.4

sex life 8.4 2.5 0.0 0.0 10.9
stroke someone's body 10 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.5

in exchange for
sexual favours 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0
fondle someone
attractive 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.5

if respond to
invitations 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

sexual favours 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
threaten colleague
to co-operate sexually 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

if co-operate sexually 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
118
Table 26: Percentages of behaviour experienced: All sample

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
told suggestive stories 25.6 11.8 3.4 0.5 41.3

remarks 19.2 5.9 0.0 0.0 25.1
heard sexist remarks 17.2 6.9 0.5 0.5 2S. 1
sccn offensive materials 10.3 2.5 1.0 0.0 13.8

.

personal matters 10.8 2.0 0.0 0.5 13.3
heard offensive
comments about looks 10.3 2.0 0.4 0.0 12.7
leering you 5.4 0.5 0.5 0.0 6.4
touch you 4.4 1.5 0.0 0.0 5.9
sexual attention 4.4 1.0 0.0 0.0 5.4
with you 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 3.0
repeated requests
for dates 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.5
stroke fondle you 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0

sexual behaviour 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
co-operative 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5

you to respond to
well 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5

treatment if don't
0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5
co-operate sexually
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
treated you badly

for refusing sex 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
119
and experienced at least once, by staff category and gender:
Table 27: Percentages of behaviour perpetrated at least once by gender and staff
category
(%) (%) (17c) (9 )
remarks about looks 38.2 36.9 32.5 18.2
draw into personal

discussion 11.8 27.4 42.5 38.6
make sexual remarks 17.6 22.6 12.5 4.5
stroke someone's body 5.9 1.2 5.0 0.0
make suceeestive
comments 14.7 15.5 10.0 9.1

sex life 8.8 14.3 12.5 4.5
caress someone
11.8 15.5 10.0 6.8
attractive
remarks on other's
14.7 14.3 10.0 4.5
sexual activities
remarks about
17.6 21.4 10.0 9.1
someone's body
fondle someone
5.9 1.2 0.0 0.0
attractive

in exchange for
5.9 2.4 0.0 0.0
sexual favours

if respond to
invitations 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

favours 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
sexual
threaten colleague
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
to co-operate sexually

if co-operate sexually 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
1?0
Table 28: Percentages of behaviour experienced at least once by gender and staff
category

(%) (%) (%) (%)
told suggestive stories 50.0 40.5 45.0 34.1

personal matters 11.8 7.1 25.0 15.9

remarks 23.5 29.8 25.0 18.2
heard offensive
comments about looks 11.8 14.3 17.5 4.5
2.9 2.4 12.5 6.8
sexual attention
leering you 0.0 0.0 17.5 13.6
0.0 1.2 5.0 6.8
with you
17.6 9.5 20.0 13.6

seen offensive materials
heard sexist remarks 20.6 26.2 27.5 25.0
repeated requests
for dates 0.0 0.0 5.0 2.3

0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3
sexual behaviour
0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3
co-operative
2.9 3.6 15.0 4.5
touch you
0.0 0.0 2.5 2.3
stroke fondle you
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

you to respond to
2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
well

treatment if don't
0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3
co-operate sexually
treated you badly

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
I,ur refusing sex
121
Tables 29 below presents coping strategies utilised by targets in percentages, h}
gender and staff category:
Table 29: Percentages of coping strategies utilised by gender and staff category

((/) (%) (%) (`()
avoided perpetrator 52.9 63.1 77.5 72.7
careful not to make

perpetrator angry 41.2 45.2 47.5 56.8
told myself it was

not really important 61.8 71.4 72.5 70.5
talked about it
with someone I trusted 44.1 57.1 67.5 70.5
told perpetrator didn't

like what they were
doing 35.3 50.0 52.5 54.5
32.4 44.0 42.5 45.5

reported perpetrator
talked to someone about

41.2 56.0 70.0 70.5
what happened
made it clear to perpetrator

38.2 50.0 57.5 61.4
they were out of line
assumed perpetrator
73.5 78.6 87.5 75.0
meant well
was careful to stay out

41.2 52.4 65.0 68.2
of way
made up excuse
41.2 50.0 57.5 56.8
to be left alone
joked about what

happened 41.2 48.8 60.0 54.5
blamed myself 47.1 52.4 60.0 50.0
41.2 54.8 57.5 56.8

asked for advise
32.4 45.2 47.5 45.5

talked with a supervisor
38.2 47.6 47.5 47.7

told perpetrator how felt
44.1 57.1 75.0 65.9

tried to forget about it
arranged things so would 63.6

52.9 54.0 72.5
not have to deal with person
32.4 45.2 42.5 5.5

made a formal complaint
behaviour 61.8 71.4 X2.5 72.7

put Lill with
I? -1
The means and standard deviations of demographic
and scale variables for the male
and female academic sample examined in this study are shown in Tables 30 and 31
that follow:
Table 30: Means, Standard Deviations and Coefficient Alphas for Academic Male
No.

.
.
.
.
.
.
Openness 10 3.80 0.46 67
.
.
.
.
.
Masculinity 8 3.64 0.58 80
.
.
Androgyny 8 2.99 0.47 62
.
.
.
.
.
.
123
Table 31: Means, Standard Deviations Coefficient Alphas for Female
and
Academic
No.

.
.
.
.
Organisational Climate 18 2.25 0.80
.9
.
Openness 10 3.56 0.43 61
.
.
.
.
.
.
Androgyny 8 2.69 0.47 66
.
.
.
.
.
.
124
6.2.2 Scale Correlations'
With respect to the male sample in Table 32, perpetrating gender harassment (higher
scores indicate higher levels of perpetrating) was significantly and positively

correlated with perpetrating unwanted sexual attention (. 56), which is not surprising
as these are scales from the same measure. Perpetrating gender harassment was also
positively correlated with experiencing gender harassment (. 60) and unwanted sexual
attention (.42) as well as with the entire measure of experiencing sexual harassment
(. 57). This indicates an association between perpetrating and experiencing sexual
harassment, where perpetrators are also victims. Also, as expected, perpetrating
gender harassment was significantly and negatively correlated with attitudes towards
sexual harassment (-. 40) suggesting that people that do not take issues of sexual
harassment seriously are more likely to perpetrate gender harassment. The negative
correlation (-. 19) between femininity and perpetrating gender harassment suggests
that males were less likely to perpetrate the more feminine they were. Finally, there
was a negative relationship between agreeableness and perpetrating gender

harassment (-. 32). Agreeableness has been associated with niceness, compliance and
social desirability and hence it is not difficult to understand why people that score
high on agreeableness are less likely to perpetrate gender harassment.
As with gender harassment, perpetrating unwanted sexual attention (higher scores

indicate higher levels of perpetrating) was positively correlated with experiencing
gender harassment (. 34) and unwanted sexual attention (. 29) as well as with the entire
measure of experiencing sexual harassment (. 40). Also, similarly to gender
harassment, unwanted sexual attention was negatively correlated with attitudes
towards sexual harassment (-. 33), indicating that people who do not take sexual
harassment seriously are more likely to perpetrate unwanted sexual attention.
2Although between variables with paths in the

significant, a number of correlations
SEM analysis are not as high as might be expected. Thus findings based on these
variables would have to be interpreted with care.
125
The gender harassment victim
scale (higher scores indicate higher level." of
experience) was positively correlated with experiencing unwanted sexual attention
(.42). This should not be surprising as these are both
scales of the measure of sexual
harassment experience. This indicates that
people who experience gender harassment
are also likely to experience unwanted sexual attention. Obviously, the total
experience of sexual harassment measure was also positively correlated with its
gender harassment experience subscale (. 94). There was a negative correlation (-. 23)
between experiencing gender harassment and attitudes towards
sexual harassment.
This indicates that people who take sexual harassment seriously
are less likely to
experience gender harassment. The negative correlation between agreeableness and
experiencing gender harassment (-. 27) suggests that the more agreeable (hence the
more nice and polite) male academics were, the less likely victims they were. There
was also a negative correlation between conscientiousness and experiencing gender
harassment (-. 19). As discussed earlier, conscientious people are generally more rule-
bound people. Hence this suggests that more rule-bound people are less likely to
experience gender harassment. Finally, there was a positive relationship between

general health and experiencing gender harassment (. 19) indicating that the more
people experience gender harassment, the more likely they are to suffer from negative
health outcomes.
As expected, the unwanted sexual attention victim scale (higher scores indicate higher
levels of experience) has a positive correlation (. 52) with the total measure of sexual
harassment. Also, unwanted sexual attention has a positive correlation (.24) with
internal coping, indicating that people who experience this utilise internal coping
strategies. As with gender harassment, being a victim of unwanted sexual attention
was negatively correlated (-. 19) with attitudes towards sexual harassment, which
suggests that people who take sexual harassment seriously are less likely to
experience unwanted sexual attention as well. Finally, there was a negative correlation
between openness and experiencing unwanted sexual attention (-. 2 1).
Examining the coping scales, it appears that external coping had no significant
correlations with any other scale in the male academic sample, while internal coping
was positively correlated, as expected, with health conditions (. 59). suggesting that
6
people that utilise internal coping strategies are more likely to have negative health
outcomes.
With respect to the female sample in Table 33, similarly to the

male sample, gender
harassment perpetrating was correlated with unwanted sexual attention
perpetrating
(. 67). Perpetrating gender harassment was also associated with experiencing gender
harassment (. 37), unwanted sexual attention (.24), and hence with the total sexual
harassment experience measure (.40).
Perpetrating unwanted sexual attention was positively correlated with job gender
context (. 25). This indicates that female academics, in a male dominated workgroup
are more likely to perpetrate unwanted sexual attention. Interestingly, in the police
sample, as discussed in the previous Chapter, although job gender context was not
associated with unwanted sexual attention, it was associated with gender harassment
and the relationship was in the opposite direction, such that female police, in a female
dominated workgroup were more likely to perpetrate gender harassment. Perpetrating
unwanted sexual attention was also associated with experiencing gender harassment
(. 26) and hence with the total sexual harassment experience measure (. 29).
Perpetrating unwanted sexual attention was negatively correlated with androgyny (-
22), suggesting that the more androgynous females in this sample were, the less
.
likely they were to perpetrate gender harassment. Again this relationship is not
surprising as androgyny has been associated with sexism in the sense that more
androgynous people are considered to be less sexist. Hence here the less sexist female
academics were, the less likely they were to perpetrate unwanted sexual attention.
There was also a negative correlation (-. 25) between masculinity and perpetrating
unwanted sexual attention suggesting that less masculine females were more likely to
perpetrate unwanted sexual attention. The positive correlation (. 34) between
neuroticism and perpetrating unwanted sexual attention suggests that the more
neurotic female academics were, the more likely they were to perpetrate unwanted
sexual attention. This association was quite interesting, as it was not particularly
expected, and as neurotic individuals are prone to stress, it is possible that their
behaviour is a coping response to their stress. Finally, there was a negative correlation
(-. 26) between agreeableness and perpetrating unwanted sexual attention. As
discussed earlier. agreeable people are nice, compliant people and hence it is not hard
I27
to understand why the more agreeable people are, the less likely they are to perpetrate
unwanted sexual attention.
As expected, the gender harassment victim scale and the unwanted sexual attention
victim scale were positively correlated (. 56) with each other. Also the total measure of
sexual harassment was positively correlated with gender harassment (. 88) as well as
with unwanted sexual attention (. 84). Finally the positive correlation between
neuroticism and unwanted sexual attention (. 29) suggests that the more neurotic
female academics were, the more susceptible they were to unwanted sexual attention.
Again, neurotic individuals are in general known to be more prone to various
stressors, and as harassment is a type of stressor, this is

result not surprising.
With respect to coping strategies, external coping was positively associated (. 51) with
the unwanted sexual attention victim scale and with the total measure of sexual
harassment experience (. 42). Internal coping was also associated with the unwanted
sexual attention victim scale (. 29). Hence it appears that female academic victims of
unwanted sexual attention utilise both internal and external coping strategies. Also
androgyny was negatively related with internal coping (-. 33) which suggests that the
less sexist female academics were (as we mentioned earlier androgynous people are
less sexist) the less likely they were to utilise internal coping strategies
considered
harassed. There was also a negative correlation between masculinity and
when
internal coping (-. 29). This indicates that more masculine female academics were less
likely to utilise internal coping. The positive association between neuroticism and
internal coping (. 29) that more neurotic individuals were more likely to
suggests
internal Finally, there was a positive association between
utilise coping strategies.
internal coping and general health (. 40), which suggests that internal coping, may
have negative consequences on the individual's health.
I8
O
r. a
O..
O
CD
CD
C>d
rv
co cn
O
CD N
0
0
vJ O 4h
O Th
O O cv
*I
4ýy CD v-, Th
Ctrl
0 O cv
CD NO 00 C`] Mi
a M ON m C-7
0 CV O
CD N O m 00
0 C7 O CV
a ON M O
C"] CD cv 0 'SY ON
0 S`ý1 Cpl rv
0 0 N yl 0 O
*I
CD cN
00 F-
co O M 00
0 O
f
O
CJ co g7
-1 C,,
r. rv 01 O
O cv
3F *1
ti^t 0 O ti'1 Th
cv W ON t`l
ýJ N 0 N O d
LJ t'1 00 00 C'`]
00 rJ, 0 Th ti'1 O
cri
i1 O 0 O O ra G O 0
t f
74 N N 'rl 00 C"1 C-7
Co ti`l O M Cpl ra 00
O O Cq O
lýl W 00
CD ca M M
O 00
0 Q Ctrl O
O 00 Ca Th
p 0 O a p d
}
*I
0 41 7r cv 00 01 00
U p kl-l C'l M t- nr E
0 0 0 C`7 O O Cl
}
9 110
*I
M cl) co 00 C-, M
4'1 c1
Cl tja P- ON Cpl
L, s1' O O
tja 0 0 cv O
. v Gý
* *I aid CI
lýý
0
0
0 4'}
r,
"1
c-I
r, v N
0 O
C-
O
N
O C`l
O
C-
cv
00 M
Y1
ý^5
U E
0) O d
ti'7 W'1 r-- ;

Clý O 00 I-- -. 4
41 Cý1 C
Q
cam, IV rl O p O O O
N' 4) ON
p 411
C-I a {'1
(N M N 00 0 0 v, Q
0 41 0 ý3-
CD O
ti'1 N y-, m
O
0
O "ý Cý
V y
* v
CA * 4
4j
i-i
i1
U U
S-i
dD
Gý
. sue.. O
47
i-ý
-j
0 m
sý ö
f-} 0 V, aD E
i-ý
.. a
6- Sä 4 0 U
0 O Tn v
aý Q4y r-ý 0 U
i-i 0 U d{-J! dJ
a) U x M vý
s=. H . ti s . ti
a
.
s L) r
Lý?
Ll 't M
47 F M
a, ýL GU uý äi D z
ýL" [LLl L:. O r-+
ý, x i+: a. v
x ti L, ýL" f--1 w lý 0
ýL"
*
ýh r, v kl 1,C) r,
ý
k", IT
S
ýý LX) L
N
CD
Cl
O
O
O
rlý ND
r=ý O
O
r-- CZ) C-
0 r,
0 O N
O 0 O
O O Tt
O O
G
G Oo O N
G N O
O 00
O IýD 00 MD -
O M O 0
N
Cfi CD Ul l-] M irl

0 W U O Cý O
0 N O
O 00 00 O O
O 0 00
Cl N O O
x x x'
CD Th 0 rl Co
0 ON Oi MD Ni 00
0 M M 00
#I
O CD IT M_ 00 O M
0 'sl
00 M
CD O Cam] O M
x
C- V-l 4l C- O
CD 00 G C,q
0 N Q tl 00
ii
ýJ lJ
M
I_I
64 CV CV S7' W
O CV
rl
%I
CD 1ý'ý
O 00 CON O
C`7 47 C`7 C"`7 CN 4' I y
N N O O rj O ry
,,,, w
c" a Ö O C0 '-l
00
c", 'r1 10 G OG
C-
O
Oti
cn L O N G O
xý I
3F
0 110 O C- Cl) C-1 C- 'll
0 00 a Th Cl 00 G f`"1
0 ýv 00
0 O O O O fý1 'rt N
vl
I
CD IT Q, cpl N
00 kh Ln
O O O G 00
r, w-, Cl O
y
r,
t
CIO C- 00 00 N O
41ý tv Oll O C- 00 r-- N in r_- ü
OQ O O O G
09 tl N
t
r, 7r r CCM r- C,q U G 10
lam] a 10
tÌ N
Th G M ö w s.,
0 N N O Cl M O
}
0 N r-ý C- M O, C- I- O O w
0 '-Z' N O W 00 CD 00 C-`7
0 O cv O O O CD O
V
iF O iw
U
0
Sý Ell) G'] g
U
"
O
0 L1 Q
r s 0
.r
ti 0 C)
0
x co vJ
0
H ä.
4y7
42 CCll
ll .s .ý
.ý
s
I
a r, '
"L 0 U
s L Lý
a.. RO .: y
as
0 w-+ 0
x C'7
.a V) L
ý-s
0 : ]y a:
ýr
Z7 * y
ýý m C- 00 C7,
ýý 7f -I-, lý7
ý; 'v
6.2.3 Analysis of Perpetrator Model
A) In the male police sample (Figure 5), attitudes towards sexual harassment was the
only predictor of perpetrating both gender harassment as well as unwanted sexual
attention. The aim of the present analysis was to see if this finding would be
confirmed in a different male organisational sample using structural equation
modelling using (LISREL 8.3, Joreskog & Sorbom, 1999).
The chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio obtained (Figure 13) was 1.45; the p-value
was 0.134; the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.062; the root
mean square residual (RMR) was 0.035; the adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI)
was 0.88; and the highest standardized residual in absolute value was 1.86. The R2
values for gender harassment and unwanted sexual attention in this model are at 34
.
and .23 and although there is only one predictor here again caution need be applied
when interpreting these findings.
131
u
r..
L
cý.
a1
.m
cis
b
ai
WL
zk Z.
c L- 1
U
Q
ýi
r. -,
B) With respect to the female perpetrator model (Figure 14) the chi-square to
degrees of freedom ratio obtained was 0.663; the p-value was 0.575; the root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.00; the root mean square residual
(RMR) was 0.041; the adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) was 0.95: and the
highest standardized residual in absolute value was 1.36. The R2 values for gender
harassment (. 17) and unwanted sexual attention (.08) in this model again suggest a
low percentage of variance accounted for in these and hence findings here need be
interpreted cautiously.
133
:J
L`.
4J
'.'e
:J
:ü
5J
cC
c
) (
m_
(D
ID
T3 E =Z
C Mx
('j CU)ä
2:
"d
C
CO N
T T col
(0 LO
C,3 .L
aJ
4} to
0
Ü
E w
d
O
E
G
;
Z,
vD
ýC
r--r
aý C
it --'.
bA Z.ý
rº. . -t
-y
J C
6.2.4 Analysis of Victim Model
A) By first look, it appeared that the model had good fit indices yet certain paths were
insignificant. Hence non-significant paths were removed one at a time. in order to
assess the effect that each one had. Table 34 presents details of paths that were
removed and corresponding fit indices. The final model for the male sample (see
Figure 15) had a chi-square/df ratio of 1.299, p-value of 0.246, RMSEA 0.051, RMR
0.051, AGFI 0.91, and the highest standardized residual in absolute value was 2.23.
The R2 values for gender harassment (.09) and unwanted sexual attention (. 14) in this
model are low suggesting a low percentage of variance accounted for in these and
hence findings here need be interpreted cautiously.
135
Table 34: Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Male Academic Victim
1. Model (1) -Original- 5.41 4 0.055 0.039 0.91

2. (1) with path jgc to gin' removed 5.45 5 0.028 0.039 0.93
3. (2) with path c to usi a removed 6.74 6 0.032 0.036 0.92
4. (3) with path ii to ghv removed 9.09 7 0.051 0.051 0.91
Note. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; RMR = root mean square residual; AGFI
adjusted goodness-of-fit index; jgc = job gender context; ghv = gender harassment victim; c=
conscientiousness; usav = unwanted sexual attention victim; ii = neuroticism.
136
ý.J
:. r
:i
ý--
ý--
:J
>
U
r-
r-
S2
"J
Q)
Q)
r.'"S
0
i-.
TJ
r--
-r
c
U
U
O
U
Z a)
^C 0
O
-1
U
U
.. r
U f
0
s
U
.J
r
r
U
"a
Cý
IT) i
U rl l
rT lr-1
L
ýW
bL C/D
i7r ý
Gý
L,
bA rý
.. r
B) When we ran the model, there was an insignificant path from perceptions of
organisational tolerance towards gender harassment and hence we removed this path.
Table 35 presents details of fit indices before and after the path was removed. The
final model for the female sample (see Figure 16) had a chi-square/df ratio of 1.48, p-
value of 0.227, RMSEA 0.076, RMR 0.065, AGFI 0.91, GFI 0.98, NFI 0.95 and the
highest standardized residual in absolute value was 1.66. The R` values for gender
harassment (. 08) and unwanted sexual attention (.24) in this model are low suggesting
a low percentage of variance accounted for in these and hence findings here need be
interpreted cautiously.
138
Table 35: Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Female Academic Victim
Model xz df RMSEA RMR AGFI
1. Model (1) -Original- 2.76 1 0.145 0.058 0.84
2. (1) with path otshi to g{n' removed 2.96 2 0.076 0.065 0.91
------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
adjusted `goodness-of-fit index; otshi = organisational tolerance towards sexual harassment; guy =
-cndcr harassment victim.
139)
:J
r--
ti
; -.
r
iN
üy
CD
2 O
S-.
0)
ai
CV
7c
14-
U
O
U
u
^C 73
O
E U
u 14-
O
aý
N
cý
-J
aý
u N
U_ yO
C i-W
aý
^d
U UulU
0
rar J>
bA
Gs, '-1-
A) After running the above model, we noticed that the indices were not far from an
acceptable fit while there were also some insignificant paths. We removed the non-
significant paths one at a time according to their t-values, eliminating first the path
from experiencing sexual harassment towards external coping, followed by the path
from perceived tolerance towards internal coping. Table 36 presents details of fit
indices before and after each path was removed. The final model (see Figure 17) had a
chi-square/df ratio of 1.78, p-value of 0.113, RMSEA 0.082, RMR 0.053, AGFI 0.91,
and GFI 0.97. The R2 value for psychological health (. 80) suggests a good amount of
variance accounted for in psychological health, although the R2 value for internal
coping (. 07) is very low and thus suggests caution in interpreting this latter finding.
141
Table 36: Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Male Academic Outcomes
Model x' df RMSEA RMR AGFI
1. Model (1) -Original- 11.84 3 0.129 0.065 0.86
2. (1) with path seqt to ecop removed 7.34 4 0.084 0.044 0.91
3. (2) with path otshi to icop removed 8.91 5 0.082 0.053 0.91
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
adjusted goodness-of-fit index; seat = sexual harassment victim total; ecop = external coping; otshi =
tolerance towards sexual harassment; icop = internal coping.
organisational
142
J
IJ
ti
QJ
cß
U
G
N
ý1.
Q p
0)
C
r--
O
U
a)
c
O
U
G
CO r--
Z
N C U
0 ,+.0 P
14-
E ._C O
c0
ýü V
oy
0
N
E C
w
-w LU
ký y
b ._O
Cý tot-
U cß
bA
-t
G=,
B) The indices for this model were not particularly good, and there were
paths that
appeared to be non-significant. Hence we tried to eliminate insignificant paths one at
a time according to their t-values to see if this would improve the fit of the model. We
first removed the path from perceived tolerance towards internal cope, followed by
the path from external coping to general health. This resulted in a chi-square to
degrees of freedom ratio of 1.86, p-value of 0.10, GFI of 0.96, AGFI of 0.87, RMSEA
of 0.102, RMR of 0.074, while the largest standardised residual in absolute value was
1.96. Although the fit now has improved from that of the original model, the RMSEA
and the RMR in particular did not indicate a very good fit. It is theoretically plausible
that perceptions of organisational tolerance may influence health (in the sense that the
belief that the organisation would not do much about an incidence could have
negative consequences to an employee's health) and it is also possible that such a

belief could negatively influence the decision to utilise external coping strategies such
as reporting a behaviour and or confronting the harasser. Consequently, even though

these relationships were found to be non-significant in the police sample, we decided
to examine their effect in the academic sample, as it is not unlikely (although it is also
not necessary) that the role of an organisational variable could vary across
organisations. In fact, as indicated in Table 37, both of these relationships were found
to be significant and they also greatly improved the fit of the present model (see
Figure 18) which now has a chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio of 0.193, a p-value
of 0.902, RMSEA of 0.000, RMR of 0.014, AGFI of 0.99, and the largest
standardised residual in absolute value now is 0.61. The R2 value for psychological
health was at 33, for internal coping at 11 and for external coping at 26.
. . .
144
Table 37: Goodness -of-Fit Indices for Female Academic Outcomes
1. Model (1) -Original- 8.68 3 0.151 0.073 0.80

2. (1) with path otshi to icop removed 8.65 4 0.118 0.075 0.85
3. (2) with path ecop to ghq removed 9.33 5 0.102 0.074 0.87
4. (3) with path otshi to ghq added 4.45 4 0.037 0.051 0.92
5. (4) with path otshi to ecop added 0.58 3 0.000 0.014 0.99
Note. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; RMR = root mean square residual; AGFI
adjusted goodness-of-fit index; otshi = organisational tolerance towards sexual harassment; icop
internal coping; ecop = external coping; ghq = general health questionnaire.
145
J
räý
<,
PAGE
MISSING
IN
ORIGINAL
6.3 Results
Results from the perpetrator, victim and outcomes models are presented below

Among males, as with the police organisation, both gender harassment and unwanted
sexual attention in this model (Figure 13) were predicted by attitudes towards sexual
harassment alone. The path from attitudes towards gender harassment is and the
-0.58
path from attitudes towards unwanted sexual attention is -0.48. These relationships
suggest that males in this sample are more likely to perpetrate both types of
harassment if they consider these as acceptable behaviours and visa versa.
Among females, relationships in the academic organisation (Figure 14) seem to
confirm those found in the police. In particular, gender harassment was predicted by
attitudes towards sexual harassment (-0.25) and by job gender context (-0.36). Finally
unwanted sexual attention was predicted by agreeableness (-0.27), such that females
were less likely to perpetrate unwanted sexual attention the more agreeable they were.
6.3.2 Victim Model
In the male academic sample (Figure 15), some, but not all, of the relationships found
in the police were confirmed. In particular, perceived organisational tolerance
predicted both gender harassment (0.30) as well as unwanted sexual attention (0.24)
suggesting that male academics were more likely to experience both types of
harassment, the more they perceived their organisation as tolerant of harassment. In
addition, unwanted sexual attention in this sample was also predicted by openness (-
0.29) here, although, interestingly enough, it does so in the opposite direction. This
relationship will be further explored in this chapter's discussion.
In the female model (Figure 16), two out of three relationships found in the police
sample, have also been confirmed in the present university organisation. Neuroticism
predicted both gender harassment (0.20) and unwanted sexual attention (0.49) as was
the case in the police sample, yet, interestingly, the relationship that was not
confirmed, that is the path from perceived tolerance towards sexual harassment to
gender harassment, is an organisational variable, and this study was conducted with a
different organisation.
148
6.3.3 Outcomes Model
As shown in Figure 17, some but not all of the relationships found in the
corresponding police model were also found in the present academic model. In
particular, the path from perceptions of tolerance towards internal coping and the path
from the experience of harassment towards external coping did not generalise to the
academic population. In the present academic model, experiencing sexual harassment
lead to internal coping (0.26), and in turn, internal coping was associated negatively
affected health outcomes (0.90).
For the female sample (Figure 18) the path from internal coping to health conditions
was 0.50, the path from perceived tolerance of sexual harassment towards health was
0.24, and the path from the experience of sexual harassment towards external coping
was 0.54 and towards internal coping 0.34. Finally, the path from perceived tolerance
of harassment towards external coping was -0.24. Thus the experience of sexual
harassment in female academic and support staff leads to both internal and external
coping responses, and perceptions of tolerance influence coping, only in this sample,
they are negatively related to external coping, while in the police, they were positively
related to internal coping. In other words, with the police sample, the more people
believed their organisation tolerated the harassment, the more they would utilise
internal coping strategies, and with the academic sample, the more people perceived
their organisation as being tolerant, the less likely they were to utilise external coping
In addition, although in the police sample external as well as internal
strategies.
had an adverse effect on health conditions (although the path from external
coping
coping to health was not nearly as high as that from internal coping), in the academic
sample, health was adversely affected by internal coping only and not external, while
tolerance (as opposed to non-tolerance) of harassment also had

perceptions of
negative consequences on employee health.
6.4 Summary of key findings
Results indicate that the same set of variables in both the police and the academic
to be to both and female perpetrating. In particular. for

samples appear related male
the academic sample, just as with the police, attitudes were again the only antecedent
149
of male perpetrating. Both gender harassment as well as unwanted sexual attention
were predicted by attitudes without any organisational or other personality influences.

Thus in both samples, males were more likely to perpetrate, the less
seriously they
took the issue of sexual harassment.
Among women perpetrators, the dynamics were the same for both samples. Attitudes
towards harassment predicted perpetrating in the female sample, but only for gender
harassment and as with the male perpetrator, the relationship again was such that
female police and female academics that took the issue of harassment seriously were
less likely to perpetrate. Female academics were more likely to perpetrate gender
harassment the more the women in their workgroup and were less likely to perpetrate
unwanted sexual attention the more agreeable they were.
With respect to the victims, the academic sample has confirmed most, but not all of
the relationships found in the police. For the police male victim, gender harassment
was predicted by perceptions of organisational tolerance, job gender context, and
neuroticism, and unwanted sexual attention was predicted by perceptions of

organisational tolerance, conscientiousness and openness. For the academic male,
perceived organisational tolerance predicted both gender harassment as well as
unwanted sexual attention, unwanted sexual attention was also predicted by openness.
For the male victim in the university organisation, perceived organisational tolerance
predicts both types of harassment in the sense that people that perceive their
organisation as being more tolerant of sexual harassment are more susceptible to both
gender harassment and unwanted sexual attention, while unwanted sexual attention in
the university was also predicted by openness, in the sense that, unlike the police
where this relationship was in the opposite direction, males in the university that are
more open to experience are actually less susceptible to unwanted sexual attention
here. Among females in the police, neuroticism predicted both types of harassment,
and organisational tolerance only predicted gender harassment. Among women in the
university organisation, neuroticism predicted both types of harassment.
Regarding outcomes among males, as with the police sample, internal coping was
again found to have negative consequences on general health. However, although
policemen utilised both internal as well as external coping strategies, men in the
150
academic sample utilised internal coping only. Finally, organisational tolerance that
was found to predict internal coping in the police sample, was not related to internal
coping in the university organisation.
In the female sample, as with the police sample, internal coping was again found to
have negative consequences on general health. In the female police sample, it was
found that external coping also contributed to negative health outcomes but this was
not the case in the academic sample. Perceptions of organisational tolerance that was
found to predict internal coping in the police sample, was not related to internal
coping in the academic sample, but did predict external coping in the present sample.
A final comment in relation perceived organisational tolerance is due here, as it
appears to be related to most differences between models in the two samples.

Although being an organisational variable, it is not hard to understand why this in
particular may behave differently between two such distinct organisations, never the
less it seemed appropriate to examine this variable in a bit more detail. As such, a
basic analysis to examine possible ceiling/floor effects (to see where the majority of
scores lie in the scale range) was thought worthwhile. As a result (while the actual
scale range of perceived organisational tolerance is 1-5), among male academics, the
scale range was 3.50, with most significant modal responses such that 14 males
scored 1, followed by 8 males that scored 2.33, the variance was 64, the mean 2.05,
.
and the standard deviation 80. Among female academics, the score range was 3.56,
.
the mode was 2.33, and the variance was .64, the mean 2.25 and the standard
deviation 80. In the police sample, among males, the score range was 2.89, the most
.
significant modal responses were such that 20 males scored I and 7 males scored
1.67, and the variance was 60, the mean 2.04, and the standard deviation 77. Finally
. .
among female police, the score range was 4, the most significant modal responses
were such that 15 women scored 1 and 7 women scored 1.89, and the variance was
72, the mean 2.35, and the standard deviation 85.
. .
I5l
CHAPTER 7
PROFILING TWO DISTINCT
ORGANISATIONS
7.1 Introduction
The purpose of the present chapter is to compare and contrast the results of the two
quantitative studies conducted with a police (chapter 5) and a university (chapter 6)

organisation respectively.
Chapter 5 described the development of theoretical models exploring antecedents and
outcomes of sexual harassment that were tested on male and female police officers
and support staff of a police organisation. As discussed in chapter 3 this organisation

was chosen due to its traditionally male dominated nature. Research had suggested in
such organisations there is a higher incidence of sexual harassment, thus providing a
rich setting for the dynamics of such behaviours to be explored.
In chapter 6, these models were tested on male and female academic and support staff
of a university organisation to see if the relationships found in the police sample could
generalise to a different organisational setting that was less militaristic and more
gender balanced.
According to the results of both studies (police and academic) incident rates were
found to be different in the two samples, such that there was a higher incidence of
harassing behaviours in the police sample, as expected, yet for the most part, the
relationships in the models of antecedents and outcomes for victims and perpetrators
where found to be stable.
The following sections start by a) describing and contrasting incidence rates b)
comparing the relationships found in the SEM models for the police and university
152
samples, and c) exploring differences among demographic and other sample
characteristics between the two samples as possible alternative explanations to the
resUIts.
7.2 Comparing incidence rates across the two samples
As expected, the experience of harassing behaviours was higher in the police sample
overall in comparison to the university sample. As indicated in Table 38 that
compares incidence rates of harassing behaviour experienced between the police and
university sample, the incidence of sexual harassment in the police was considerably
higher across behaviours, with the exception of the display of offensive materials,
which was lower in the police force (at 10.7 %) in comparison to the university
organisation (at 13.8 %).
Chi-square tests between the two samples suggested significant differences in
behaviour experienced including offensive stories (x2 = 22.8, p= 000), unwanted

.
discussion (x2 = 15.3, p= 000), crude remarks (x2 = 9.9, p= .002), offensive remarks
.
(x2 = 8.8, 003), unwanted sexual attention (x2 = 4.0, p= . 040), starring (x2 = 4.2, p
p= .
030), attempts establish romantic relationship (x2 = 6.0, p= 010).
= . .
I, 3
Table 38:
Behaviour experienced: comparison between police and university
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
4) Q Police
v 30.0 0 University
C
20.0
10.0
0.0
ýaý ýa oýý ý\°ý i\.ýo' 'ýýýQ

ýý°ýo+ ýý ,ý°ý oýý oýý . ý\°ý ýý o+ ý+
° t5 otasr4 .\aý5 d \ýo' oho 5
ý0
ýý ýo ýoý goo °ý ýo ýa ýa ýo ýý ota ýa ýo ýo
5 ýa °`ý`ý ° ý° ý° ö
,`°a art ýý aý °a
aia aý t° Boa
aýýo
Behaviour
As shown in Table 39 below with reference to perpetrating harassment, people in the
police, admitted to higher levels of perpetrating remarks on appearance, sexual
remarks, suggestive comments and sexual remarks about body, in comparison to

people in the university organisation. People in the police admitted to perpetrating
more behaviours involving remarks about appearance than people in the academic
sample (x2 = 12.1, p= .008). At the same time, people in the university organisation
admitted to perpetrating more unwanted sexual attention behaviours overall (i. e.
caress x' = 5.6, p= 010). Finally although it is difficult to make appropriate

.
comparisons with reference to behaviour involving sexual coercion due its low base
rate, as Table 35 suggests, with the exception of behaviour that involves helping
others in exchange for sexual favours, people in the police admitted to perpetrating
more of such behaviours in comparison people in the university sample.
154
Table 39: Perpetrating behaviour: comparison between police and university
Perpetrating Behaviour: Comparison between police and

university
40 0
35 0
,90 00
25 0
C)
U
a) 0 Police
200
U 13University
i50
100
50
00
' e ý5 5 aA öýe ý' c' ' \ýý \\\

<; s sec +ý. +lp
`; eýe
\ ee+Qa
5e+ aýc; 5e+ aýee aýe
ýe ý°ý °c re eý eý
ýeý 5Q °Q °Q
ýQ rýý
Oýre ýýe`\
racAe r ýeaýec
e+c mý°
Qýý
Behaviour
155
7.3 Comparing perpetrator, victim and outcome models between the two samples
With reference to the perpetrator models, the same set of variables in both the police
and the academic samples appear to be related to both male and female perpetrating.
Regarding male perpetrators in particular, as shown in Figures 5 and 13, in the
police as well as the university sample, both gender harassment and unwanted sexual
attention were predicted by attitudes without any organisational or other personality

predictors. Thus in both organisations, men who took the issue of sexual harassment
less seriously were more likely to perpetrate both gender harassment and unwanted
sexual attention.
Among female perpetrators (as shown in Figures 6 and 14), again the same
relationships were found in both the police as well as the academic samples. In
particular, attitudes towards sexual harassment again predicted perpetrating, but only
for gender harassment. Also similarly to the male perpetrator model, the relationship
was such that females who took harassment seriously were less likely to be
perpetrators. In addition, females in both samples were more likely to perpetrate
gender harassment the more women they had in their workgroup and were less likely
to perpetrate unwanted sexual attention the more agreeable they were. Agreeableness
has been associated with niceness, compliance and social desirability. The present
results indicate that females who are nicer, more compliant and who like to do more
socially desirable things are less likely to perpetrate unwanted sexual attention that
involves behaviours that are more severe than gender harassment.
Thus with respect to gender, attitudes were the only predictor of both gender
harassment as well as unwanted sexual attention among males, while among females,
attitudes were again significant in predicting perpetrating, yet they predicted gender
harassment only, which is also predicted by job gender context, while unwanted
sexual attention perpetrating was predicted by agreeableness. Thus it seems that
attitudes have a significant role in predicting sexual harassment in both genders, yet
while among women elements of the organisational environment and of personality
also influence perpetrating, among men attitudes is the only predictor. Furthermore,
these relationships are stable across both organisations, such that the dynamics behind
156
male perpetrating in the police and female perpetrating in the police would appear to
be the same as the dynamics behind male perpetrating in
academia and female
perpetrating in academia
With respect to the victim models, most, but not all, of the relationships found in the
police were found in the academic sample. In particular, for the police male victim
(as shown in Figure 8), gender harassment was predicted by perceptions of
organisational tolerance, job gender context, and neuroticism, unwanted sexual

attention was predicted by perceptions of organisational tolerance, conscientiousness
and openness. Now for the academic male victim (see Figure 15), gender harassment
was predicted by perceived organisational tolerance, and unwanted sexual attention
was predicted by perceived organisational tolerance and openness. More specifically,
it appears that for the male victim in the academic sample, perceived organisational
tolerance predicts both types of harassment in the sense that people that perceive their
organisation as being more tolerant of sexual harassment are more susceptible to both
gender harassment and unwanted sexual attention, while unwanted sexual attention in
this sample was also predicted by openness, in the sense that (contrary to the police
where this relationship was in the opposite direction) male academics that are more
open to experience are actually less susceptible to unwanted sexual attention here.
For the female victim models, gender harassment in the female police (Figure 9) was
predicted by neuroticism and by perceptions of organisational tolerance, while
unwanted sexual attention was predicted by neuroticism alone. In the female

academic sample (Figure 16), both gender harassment and unwanted sexual attention
were predicted by neuroticism, as with the female police. Neurotic individuals, as

discussed earlier, are in general more prone to various stressors, and as harassment is
a form of stressor, we can see how this variable predicts both types of harassment in
this model. Interestingly, the organisational variable that represents perceptions of
organisational tolerance towards harassment, predicted gender harassment in the
police sample but not the academic sample.
With respect to gender differences among targets of harassment, among males,
organisational influences were related to experiencing both types of harassment, while
among females, organisational influences (organisational tolerance to be precise)
157
predicted gender harassment in the police, but not in academia. In fact among
females, the personality characteristic of neuroticism
was the most consistent
predictor of both types of harassment and across both organisations. Neuroticism
predicted gender harassment among males in the police sample, but not among males
in academia.
With respect to outcomes for the male model, some but not all of the relationships
found in the police sample (see Figure 11) were also found in the academic sample
(see Figure 17). In particular, male police were found to utilise both internal (i. e. self
blame and putting up with the behaviour) as well as external (i. e. confronting the
harasser and reporting a behaviour) coping strategies as a result of experiencing
sexual harassment, while internal coping was positively related to psychological

outcomes such that the more male police utilised internal coping strategies, the more
likely they were to suffer from negative psychological outcomes. Also perceived
organisational tolerance was found to predict internal coping such that the more the
person perceived the organisation as tolerant of harassment the more likely they were
to utilise internal coping.
In the reale university sample, internal coping was again found to have negative
consequences on general health, however, although policemen utilised both internal as

well as external coping strategies in response to harassment, it appears that the men in
the academic sample utilised only internal coping strategies. It is possible that the men
in the academic sample did not utilise external coping due to some aspect of their
occupational culture. Finally, perceptions of organisational tolerance that was found

to predict internal coping in the police sample, was not related to internal coping in
the academic sample. Again considering that this is an organisational variable, it is not
hard to understand why this relationship did not generalise from the male dominated
and highly rule bound police to the more gender balanced and less extreme academic
organisation.
With respect to outcomes for the female model, as with outcomes for males, some
but not all of the relationships found in the female police sample (see Figure 12) were
found in the female academic sample (see Figure 18), and it was again the two
variables, organisational tolerance (the organisational variable) and external coping
158
that although existed as relationships in both the police and the university, they
behaved differently in each sample. In particular, in both
samples. internal coping was
again found to have negative consequences on general health. In the female police
sample, it was found that external coping also contributed to negative health outcomes
(although this relationship was much weaker than that between internal coping
and
health) but this was not the case in the academic sample. Perceptions of organisational
tolerance was found to predict internal coping in the police sample yet was not related
to internal coping in the academic sample, although it did predict external coping in
the academic sample such that the more tolerant of sexual harassment the individual
perceived the organisation to be, the less likely this person was to utilise external
coping, such as reporting a behaviour, (which is quite intuitive). In the university
sample perceptions of a tolerant organisation towards harassment also lead to

negatively affected psychological health. Again it should be noted that this is an
organisational variable and hence it is not difficult to understand how some
relationships here did not generalise from the male dominated and highly rule bound
police to the more gender balanced and less extreme academic organisation.
Finally, regarding gender patterns in outcomes, the most consistent finding was that
the use of internal coping, which, was utilised by men and women in both
organisations as a result of being harassed, and lead to adversely affected
psychological health for men and women in the police as well as academia. Females
in both samples utilised external as well as internal coping, while among males
external coping was utilised in the police but not the academic sample.
7.4 Demographic differences between the two samples

Overall, as discussed above, although most relationships found in the police sample
models were found to generalise to the academic sample as well, a finding that leads
to the expectation that similar relationships could also be observed in other
organisations, there were still some differences in the relationships between models
across the two samples for which there could be other possible reasons.
Occupational culture, although believed to influence incidence rates indirectly, due to
the fact that it is a function of the nature of the mission and the task of the
organisation which attracts a different gender balance hence influencing incidence
159
rates (Conrad & Gutek, 1986; Gutek. 1985; Gutek & Dunwoody, 1987: Gutek &
Morasch, 1982; Kanter, 1977), may not necessarily explain differences in the
models.
because the principal relationships in these models are stable across
organisations.
However where differences in relationships across models are in relation to
organisational variables such as perceived organisational tolerance, in these instances
it is suspected that organisational culture is likely to be related to these differences.
Alternative explanations may be provided by the demographic differences between
these two distinct organisations.
The most obvious demographic differences between the two samples is the difference
in the gender distribution between the male dominated police population (that
consisted of only 972 females in comparison to 1987 males) from which the police
sample was taken and the more even distribution of the university organisation. This
difference in gender distribution certainly has implications with reference to the
incidence of sexual harassment, which, as discussed in more detail in chapter 3, is
well documented in the literature (Baker, 1989; Gutek, 1985; Gutek & Dunwoody,
1987; Gutek & Morasch, 1982; Lafontaine & Tredeau, 1986), to be higher in
traditionally male dominated environments, as the case of the police here.
A series of t-tests were conducted to examine if there were any significant differences
by gender and type of perpetrating, type of sexual harassment experienced, choice of
coping strategy and attitudes towards sexual harassment. As shown in tables 40

through 41, in the police sample, significant differences by gender were identified for
the unwanted sexual attention perpetrator, the unwanted sexual attention victim, as
well as for external coping. These differences were such that indicated that
significantly more females than males perpetrated unwanted sexual attention.
significantly more females than males experienced unwanted sexual attention and
significantly more females than males utilised external coping strategies (i. e.
confronting the harasser and reporting the behaviour) to harassment. Similar gender
differences were also found in the university sample as shown in tables 42 through 43.
In particular, as with the police sample, significantly more females than males
experienced unwanted sexual attention and significantly more females than males
utilised external coping strategies in response to harassment. However, in contrast to
160
the police where significantly more females than males perpetrated unwanted sexual
attention, in the university sample significantly more females than males perpetrated
gender harassment. Concerning the finding that significantly more females than males
in both samples experienced unwanted sexual attention, this was in the expected
direction as the literature suggests that women are much more likely targets of sexual
harassment than males (Fitzgerald, et. al., 1988; USMSPB, 1981,1988: Palludi, 1990;
Mezey & Rubenstein, 1991).
Finally the finding that significantly more females than males in the police perpetrated
unwanted sexual attention and significantly more females than males in the university
sample perpetrated gender harassment was less easy to interpret. Perhaps this could be
explained by the literature on perceptions of sexual harassment (e.g., Fitzgerald &
Ormerod, 1991; Jones & Remland, 1992) that suggests that females overall are more
likely to interpret behaviours as harassment than males, and thus perhaps females in
the police and academic samples were more likely to perceive and hence admit to
behaviours than males. Another possibility is that the present findings are due to some
type of response bias where perhaps more females taking sexual harassment seriously
responded to the survey. However the present analysis, as described here, did not find
any significant differences in attitudes towards sexual harassment by gender, a finding
that provides at least partial support against this claim. A more detailed discussion on
response bias in the sexual harassment literature is presented in the methodology
chapter.
161
Age is another significant demographic characteristic associated with sexual
harassment as younger people are documented to be more likely targets
of sexually
harassing behaviours than older people (USMSPB. 1981,1988,1995). The
mean age
for the police sample was 38.9 (standard deviation 9.7) where the mean for
male
support staff was 43.6 (standard deviation 11.2), for female support staff was 37.5
(standard deviation 9.9), for male police officers was 39.7 (standard deviation 6.4)
and for the female police 33.8 (standard deviation 6.5). Overall the academic sample
was older than the police sample, with an overall mean of 43.4 (standard deviation
11.1) where the mean for male support staff was 44.9 (standard deviation 10.1), for
female support staff was 40.5 (standard deviation 11.3), for male academics was 45.3
(standard deviation 11.6) and for female academics 41.2 (standard deviation 10.1).
A series of ANOVAs were conducted to examine if there were any significant

differences by age (age groups defined as "1": 15-20, "2": 21-30, "3": 31-40, "4": 41-
50 and "5": 51 and over) and type of perpetrating, type of sexual harassment
experienced, choice of coping strategy and attitudes towards sexual harassment. As
shown in tables 44 through 45, in the police sample, there were no significant
differences found among males for any of the variables. Among females, only
external coping by age was significant, such that most external coping was done by
females up to the age of 40. In the university sample, as shown in tables 46 through
47, there were no significant differences among males, and among females,
perpetrating gender harassment only was significant, such that more females (in the
university sample) aged 21-30 perpetrated gender harassment than females in any
other age group. Thus while there were a few significant differences by age group in
both samples, these were not found in relation to experiencing sexual harassment as
the literature would suggest.
162
Next significant differences in perpetrating, experiencing, coping styles and
attitudes
towards sexual harassment were examined by staff category. The police sample
consisted of 82 male and 62 female support staff, as well as of 53 male police officers
and 63 female police officers. The university sample consisted of 34 male and 40
female support staff, as well as of 84 male and 44 female academics. As shown in
tables 48 through 49 for the police organisation and 50 through 51 for the academic
organisation, across samples there was only one significant difference by staff
category. In particular, there were no significant differences by staff category in the

university organisation, and only one significant difference found in the police
sample. This difference was found in experiencing gender harassment among females
in the police sample, such that significantly more female police (non-support) officers
experienced gender harassment than female support staff. Considering that the police
organisation (population, not sample) consisted of 370 female versus 1607 male
police officers and 602 female support staff versus 380 male support staff (that is over
four times more male police officers than female police officers and over one and a
half times more female support than male support staff), these findings appear to be in
line with the literature on sexual harassment and traditionally male dominated
organisations (Baker, 1989; Gutek, 1985; Gutek & Dunwoody, 1987; Gutek &
Morasch, 1982; Lafontaine & Tredeau, 1986) that suggests that the incidence of
sexual harassment among women working in male dominated work groups is higher
than that in more gender balanced workplaces. Finally it should be noted that the fact
that there were no other significant differences by staff category here is a welcome
finding for the present research, which due to the already very small sample sizes
available (related to methodological and ethical considerations discussed in the
methodology chapter) was unable to proceed with the exploration of separate models
by staff category.
163
More specific to the police organisation, are demographic variables describing
Frontline and non-frontline police staff, length of service and rank/grade.
Front line staff in the police organisation consisted of 54 male and 55 female police
officers as well as 15 male and 5 female support staff. Non-front line staff consisted
of 7 male and 10 female police officers as well as 55 male and 49 female support
staff. As shown in tables 52 through 53, among males, there was a significant
difference by front line staff for experiencing unwanted sexual attention such that
front line males were found to experience significantly more unwanted sexual
attention than non-frontline males. Among females, significant differences were
identified for gender harassment experience, such that frontline females were found to
experience significantly more gender harassment than non-frontline females.
164
As shown in table 54, there was a significant difference in length of service by staff
category among males in the police organisation such that there were more male
support staff (than police officers) with a length of service up to 10 years, and more
male police officers (than support staff) with a length of service of 11 years upwards.
Among females there was no significant difference by length and staff category. Also,
as shown in tables 55 through 56, a series of ANOVAs were run to examine whether
there were any significant differences in perpetrating, experiencing, coping and
attitudes towards sexual harassment by length of service. However no such

differences were identified for males or for females.
165
Table 54: Length of service by staff category by gender
Length of service * staff category *gender
staff category chi-

gender support police square
male length of 1-5 years 14 3
service 20.9% 5.1 %
6-10 years 26 -9
38.8% 15.3%
11-20 years 16 21
23.9% 35.6%
21-more years 11 26
16.4% 44.1%
Total 67 59 21.711
100.0% 100.0% p: .000
female length of 1-5 years 16 21
service 29.1% 33.9%
6-10 years 20 14
36.4% 22.6%
11-20 years 14 16
25.5% 25.8%
21-more years 5 11
9.1% 17.7%
Total 55 62 3.712
100.0% 100.0% p: .244
166
Finally as shown in tables 57 through 58, in the police there were significant
differences in rank by gender for police officers, as well as in grade by gender for
support staff. These differences were such that, among support staff, there were no
females in the senior officer grades SO-2, MP7 and MP6, and four males to one
female in the senior officer l (SO-1) grade, and among police officers, there were
significantly more males in the senior police ranks than females. Also as shown in
tables 59 through 62, a series of ANOVAs were conducted to examine possible
significant differences in rank grade by perpetrating, experiencing, coping and
attitudes towards sexual harassment. Significant differences by rank/grade were only
identified in relation to attitudes towards sexual harassment and only among male
police officers and female support staff (but not among male support staff or among
female police officers). In particular, results indicated that male police officers (non-
support staff) had significantly different attitudes by rank, such that the higher their
rank the more they took sexual harassment seriously. Among female support staff
(non-police officers), the significant difference in attitudes towards sexual harassment
was such that females in scale 6 and senior officer 1 (SO-1) grade, took sexual
harassment more seriously than females in other grades.
It should be noted here that while the fact that no significant difference was identified
in rank/grade by perpetrating and experiencing sexual harassment may initially appear
somewhat unexpected due to the popular notion that sexual harassment is more of a
top-down occurrence, what is actually most common is harassment by one's
colleagues (USMSPB, 1981,1988,1995). A large-scale study of federal workers in
the United States (USMSPB, 1995) revealed that 79 per cent of male and 77 per cent
of female victims experienced unwanted behaviours by co-workers and other
employees that had no supervisory relation to them, while only 14 per cent of males
and 28 per cent of females that experienced harassment indicated that they were
harassed by people that had some supervisory role over them.
167
ender
rank constables 28 52
48.3% 81.3%
supervisors 30 12
51.7% 18.8%
Total 58 64 14.655
100.0% 100.0% p: .000
ender
rank scale 1-6 32 32
grade 66.7% 80.0%
senior 10 1
officers
20.8% 2.5%
traffic 6 7
controlers 12.5% 17.5%
Total 48 40 6.769
100.0% 100.0% p: .034
168
7.5 Comparing other sample characteristics between the two organisations
An examination of male and female mean scores for scales in the police and
university samples (tables 15,16,30,31) presented in chapters 5 and 6, suggest that
police males scored higher on the personality characteristics of conscientiousness,
extraversion and agreeableness (with mean scores of 4.05,3.33 and 3.92 respectively)
in comparison to males in the university sample (with mean scores of 3.77.3.13 and
3.81 respectively). Female police also scored higher on these scales (with means
scores of 4.10,3.55, and 3.95 respectively) than females in the university sample
(with mean scores of 3.84,3.37 and 3.86 respectively).
On the other hand, males in the university sample scored higher than police males on
neuroticism (with a mean value of 2.55 among academics versus 2.35 in the police)
and openness (with a mean value of 3.80 among academics versus 3.45 among
police). While female academics also scored higher on the same scales than females
in the police sample (with mean values for neuroticism of 2.89 among academics
versus 2.64 among police, and mean values for openness of 3.56 among academic and
3.37 among the police).
These findings suggest that both male and female police were more conscientious,
agreeable and extravert in comparison to males and females of the university sample.
At the same time male and female academics were more neurotic and open to
experience in comparison to the men and women in the police sample.
7.6 Conclusion
Relating the above-discussed characteristics of the two samples to the perpetrator,
victim and outcome models developed in the police and university samples, it appears
that the above-identified differences between the two samples provide some insight
but not a full explanation to the differences between the police and university models.
Comparing the police and university female victim models (Figures 9 and 16), the
difference between these two was that perceived organisational tolerance that
predicted experiencing gender harassment among police females, was not related (had
no path) to experiencing gender harassment among females academics. Thus the main
169
difference between the two models here was related to an organisational
variable. This
suggests that this finding may be the result of differences between the occupational
cultures of these two distinct organisations. Another possibility is that the difference
in the two models is related to the higher incidence of gender harassment in the
police
in comparison to the university sample where perhaps there is more to be
accounted
for in the police.
With respect to the male victim models generated in the two samples (Figures 8 and
15), again there were more paths in the police model than in the academic model,
which could be related to the higher incidence of both gender harassment as well as
unwanted sexual attention in the police.
For the outcome models (Figures 11,12,17,18), most differences were again in
relation to paths from perceived organisational tolerance. Among females in the
police, organisational tolerance predicted internal coping, whereas among female

it
academics predicted external coping as well as psychological health. Among males
organisational tolerance predicted internal coping in the police sample but had no role
in the academic sample. The only other differences between the two samples with
respect to outcomes were tied to external coping. The male models suggest that male
police utilised both internal as well as external coping strategies in response to the
harassment while academic males only utilised internal coping strategies. Again the
higher incidence of harassment found in the police force may explain why males in
the police utilised more types of coping responses.
As discussed above, occupational culture, although believed to influence incidence
rates indirectly, may not necessarily explain differences in the models, as the principal
relationships in these are actually stable across organisations. Yet where differences in
relationships across models are in relation to organisational variables such as
perceived organisational tolerance, in these instances it is suspected that
organisational culture is likely to be related to these differences.
Alternative explanations could be provided by the different gender distributions

between the male dominated police and the more even distribution of the university.
Overall the academic sample was older and significant differences by age indicated
170
that more females up to the age of 40 in the police sample utilised external coping and
that younger versus older female academics perpetrated gender harassment, although
age did not appear to explain experiencing harassment in either sample.
171
CHAPTER 8
WHEN IS IT OK AND WHEN IS IT NOT: A
QUALITATIVE STUDY OF SEXUAL
HARASSMENT WITH AN ACADEMIC
SAMPLE
8.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the results of the focus groups described at pages 61 and 62. In
summary, two groups were recruited, one made up of five men and the other made up
of six women. Respondents were asked to explain the meaning of given behaviour
and whether this was experienced as harassing. The groups deliberations were tape
recorded, a full transcript was derived. A thematic content analysis was then
undertaken. This involved several re-readings of the transcript and an identification of
emergent themes. Specific extracts that illustrated a theme were colour coded
similarly coloured quotations were then culled from the transcript in order to provide
evidence elaborating the detail of the super ordinate theme.
An inductive and weak social constructionist epistemological approach was taken, in
order to explore the meaning of certain concepts to individuals (i. e. what it means to a
man versus a woman when a female versus a male boss strokes their hair).
8.2 Results
There was a large degree of agreement from both the male and the female focus group
discussions upon the set of factors (most of them related to each other), which were
considered to play a key role in determining whether certain behaviours were
perceived as acceptable or whether they were perceived as sexual harassment. Overall
critical in interpreting behaviour as sexual harassment was a) on the relationship
172
between the instigator and the recipient of the behaviour. b) whether the behaviour
left the victim feeling threatened (that is, regardless of an explicit threat made. c)
whether the behaviour left the recipient feeling physically or psychologically

threatened); d) on the role (i. e. status, power) of the perpetrator within the
organisation and in relation to the victim; e) on the extent of the sexual content of the
behaviour; f) on the perception that the person doing the behaviour has the potential to
gain some sexual gratification, and hence on the gender and sexual orientation of the
perpetrator, g) on the perceived motivation (i. e. sexual, threatening, or well
intentioned) of the instigator by the victim and finally on the behaviour being
unwanted (thus making the recipient feeling uncomfortable) and repeated. In addition,
both male and female participants believed that there are individual differences in
perception and that, along with the above-mentioned factors, different people react to
different behaviours in different ways.
Participants of both groups also agreed that both males and females were the target of
harassment, although it was considered to be more likely that a senior man would be
the instigator targeting a more junior woman. Finally members of both the male and
female discussion groups demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the systems in place
by the organisation to deal with sexual harassment and also suggested that reporting
an incident was perceived particularly embarrassing for men.
173
Table 63: Common themes
1. Interpreting behaviour as sexual harassment depended on:
a. the relationship between the instigator and the recipient of the

behaviour
b. the perceived threat associated with the behaviour
c. the power and status of the perpetrator

d. the extent of the sexual content of the behaviour
e. the potential for the perpetrator to gain sexual gratification

f. the perceived motivation of the perpetrator
g. behaviour being unwanted

h. behaviour being repeated
i. different people react to different behaviours in different ways
(individual differences in interpretation)
2. Who is harassing whom:
a. Both men and women are targets

b. More senior men harassing women
3. Awareness of systems in place by organisation to deal with sexual

harassment and willingness to report:
a. lack of knowledge of systems that were in place

b. men too embarrassed to report harassment
174
8.2.1 Female Focus Group
Findings below are structured according to the eliciting question.
When is it sexual harassment?
U. I depends on the relationship between the instigator and the recipient of

the behaviour. A very significant issue raised by members of the female
focus group (as well as by members of the male focus group) was that
sexual harassment was not simply about the nature of the behaviour in
question, but that there were also other factors that came into play between
the behaviour and the interpretation of this. In an attempt to give her own
personal definition of sexual harassment, Florence said:
"[Sexual harassment is] like unwanted comments or gestures or touching or

things like looks or comments made to other people about physical stuff or I
mean it can be anything or lots of things but it would depend on who is doing
it and what your relationship with that person is in determining whether it is
harassment or not. "
Hence for Florence the relationship between two people involved in an incident must
be taken into account when interpreting a particular behaviour. Denise elaborates on
the role of the relationship between the individuals involved and brings up the issue of
the role of the perpetrator in relation to the victim. She makes the point that when
someone's boss instigates behaviours such as a comment of a sexual nature, the

recipient of this comment may feel that they have less "freedom" to react:
"Also it's like the role of the other person in relation to you. Like someone
makes a comment of a sexual nature, if the person's relation to you is like your
boss, then maybe you don't have the same freedom to behave, so like in that
content it can be wrong. "
This comment could also be taken as an indirect reference to the issue of the power of
the perpetrator over the victim that was also raised by members of the male focus
group and this will be discussed in further detail later in this section.
175
b) repeated behaviour: Meanwhile, another factor that
members of the female focus
group thought needed to be taken into account when interpreting behaviour was if it
were a one off incident or a repeated behaviour. Cathy in particular said the following:
"If you already made it clear that these are the sorts of issues that you are not
going to discuss with this person, the next time they do it then it would be
harassment."
c) the motivations of the perpetrator also appeared to play a very significant role in
the way that their behaviour was interpreted. In response to one of the interviewer's
questions regarding what makes the difference between acceptable and unacceptable
behaviour, Cathy said the following:
"It depends on what you perceive that the motivations of the other person is or
are, so for instance I know a particular person who would ask questions
without being invited but I also know that that particular person is also not
malicious, I would not be threatened or harassed."
d) sexual gratification: Two more people also agreed that when the motive is
perceived to be sexual with the potential aim of the sexual gratification of the
perpetrator, the behaviour then is even more likely to be perceived as unacceptable.
Denise said:
"It depends how it makes you feel, if it makes you feel sexually
uncomfortable, in a sexual kind of way, trying to get off on what you say, it
depends on how the situation is developing then you would feel sexual
harassment, otherwise you would classify it as harassment, as something that
is annoying me that I am in a position that I can't, I feel trapped... but not
necessarily sexual. "
And Becky added:
"Now if my boss was making these comments that was a man and I knew that
he was gay, then it wouldn't bother me. "
e) individual differences: according to the above, behaviour was more likely to be
interpreted as sexually harassing the more intruding it was, the more sexual its
content, the more derogatory its reference to the female species, and depending on the
relationship of the people involved, the role of the perpetrator, how persistent it was
176
and on the perceived motive of the perpetrator, especially when this was thought to
involve some type of sexual gratification. However different people also perceive
things differently. And while participants seemed to agree on the role of the above in
interpreting behaviour, there were still individual differences with respect to the
extent to which different members of the female group were likely to label various
behaviours as sexually harassing. Emily in particular said the following:
"I would say that some things might not bother me but some other people they
would do (bother). I have things that happen to me that I would not see as a
problem yet I also have a friend and she... any situation where someone that
she did not know very well touched her, she would find that very, well she
would have a problem with that. If you are not used to certain types of
behaviour you would then find that more threatening than someone who is
more used to being touched. "
Also a dispute demonstrating some of these individual differences was that between
Denise and Florence. Florence started the argument when she gave the example of
people going into the office and discussing personal matters of their own with their
colleagues, saying that when people volunteer intimate details on their own, then
perhaps asking them questions about their love life should not be taken as sexual
harassment. Denise disagreed with this and her opinion is best portrayed in the
following extract:
"I am not sure that I agree on that statement because, just because somebody
spoke about it before doesn't mean that this allows they do the same to them
now. To me that is kind of like saying that: "if we had sex before so I can
force it on you now... " so I'm not sure... "
As noted earlier, half (three) of the female focus group members were from the UK
and the other half (three) were from various other different countries. So inevitably,
participants brought up the issue of culture, both from the perspective of the
perpetrator, as well as from the perspective of the victim. The case was made that
cultural differences were yet another reason why interpreting the type of behaviour
discussed was not a straightforward matter. Cathy started off this part of the
discussion when she brought up the issue of privacy and how this varied from one
individual to another:
177
"You can't really have a cut-off point, you know,
some people's sense of
privacy is much more highly set than others. "
This issue of privacy alone is another significant point relating to individual

differences in sensitivity and which could go some way to explain why certain
behaviours are regarded as acceptable to some people and as unacceptable to
others.
And Cathy, who elsewhere during the discussion explained that she came from the
Mediterranean, tied this matter to that of culture immediately when she
said the
following:
"... for example Mediterranean people are much more comfortable with
flirtatious comments unlike northerners... if somebody would be aggressive to
me or be very curious to me or be very pokey and nosey, you know, I would
think, hey this is actually crossing the line of what is really culturally
acceptable in here in this country [UK]. "
So in Cathy's experience behaviour such as flirtatious comments was more acceptable

in certain countries (such as the Mediterranean) than in others (such as the UK and
northern Europe) and in her opinion, such behaviour was unacceptable in the UK.
Hence it appeared that due to the fact that Cathy's origin was from a country with
different norms with respect to such behaviour, Cathy based her interpretation of the
behaviour on the cultural norms of the country where they took place.
Becky who is also of Mediterranean origin agreed with Cathy and added that it was
important to consider culture from the perspective of the perpetrator by examining
their motive:
"Relating to that, I think it has to do with how you are interpreting the motives
of that person. Is it part of the culture? How much do we assume that they are
being friendly or just being explicit? It goes back to the culture. It's complex. "
Organisational climate
When the interviewer asked participants to describe the extent of their knowledge
with respect to their organisation's structures towards sexual harassment, that is where
they could go if they needed confidential advice, what their options were and how
178
things would be dealt with, most people agreed that they were not really aware of
these things. Emily in particular said the following:
"I guess it would be very unclear to whom anybody would be answerable to

and if someone had done something that I wanted to complain about who
would put pressure on them and how that would be dealt with. I don't have a
particular picture as to whom I would trust to deal with that... Yeah, I mean I
was not aware that there was something like you said, [referring to interviewer
who at the start advised participants that there were harassment advisors in
place within each School] possibly at School level, or possibly across the
university. "
And Denise didn't think any clear structure was in place, and if there was, she was
certainly not aware of it.
I don't know, for students, there is more of a structure for resources or

students can go to their personal tutors I guess etc., but when you are staff, I
don't think that there is any kind of [clear structure. ]"
Also with respect to actually reporting an incident, Anne noted that the role of the
person instigating an incident was likely to influence the decision to report, giving the
example where one is faced with the option to report their supervisor, which could
have negative consequences to the person's (target's) career as a whole:
"It depends on who you are reporting as well, depending on who this person
could be, like sometimes if its your supervisor you could be afraid that this
[report] could have an effect for the rest of your life if your career really
depends on getting along with this person. "
And she added to the above:
"I'd also wonder how likely men would be to report that they have been
harassed when they have. "
So Anne also thought that men would be less inclined to report harassment. Perhaps
by this she meant that men would be too embarrassed to make a report or even
interpret certain behaviours as harassment in the first place. In any case a member of
the male focus group who also brought this up as an issue in reporting confirmed that
this could be a factor affecting reporting in some men:
179
"Ben: And as a man I have to say that I would never report being sexually
harassed as well !! I mean I would just find it too embarrassing'"'
Does it happen`?And if so, who is harassing whom?

The final question posed by the interviewer was if these behaviours happened in their
organisation, and if so, who tended to be the instigator and who tended to be the
target. In other words, in the experience of the women in the focus group, what was
the gender and relative position (with respect to the hierarchical structure of the
organisation) of the perpetrator towards the victim and visa versa? In response to that
question Denise said:
"Yeah, my first reaction would be that more senior men are doing it to women
but I haven't necessarily seen this all the time. Its just that I wouldn't be
surprised because I have I
seen suppose the nonsexual behaviour type where I
would not be surprised that in certain situations it goes beyond that because I
have seen the nonsexual end of the tail in that. "
And then Florence added to the above:
"... Yes I have seen it as well, where I am not necessarily sure that I would call it
sexual harassment or if it's just offensive, I mean I don't know... "
So it appeared that the perception was that men of a higher status did the majority of
the harassment to women of a lower status in the organisation. However this

interpretation was offered with caution as the wording of Denise's response ("... my
first reaction would be... ", "... I haven't necessarily seen this all the time... ")
suggested some doubt. Hence it is possible that some prior opinions about sexual
harassment as this had been portrayed in the media for instance (i. e. with the
exception of more recent programs, in the majority of films from the 70's through the
80's with sexual harassment as a theme, most perpetrators were senior men and most
victims where women of a lower stature) affected her perception. Then she added that
the reason she thought that way was because she had seen the "nonsexual end of the
tail in that". So she may have seen some form of bullying or even just tension that was
instigated by a senior male towards a female employee.
180
This concern with respect to the perception of "does it happen"
and "who does it to
who" that was raised from the wording of Denise's response was then described more
explicitly by Florence who thought that people were less likely to perceive as
harassing behaviour that was instigated from their own gender towards the
opposite
sex and more likely to perceive as harassment behaviour that was instigated by the
opposite sex towards them:
"I think the danger is that if for instance we heard friends and female friends
talk about men in a derogative way I think we are prone to say, "uh well that
was just for a laugh", you know what I mean? If we heard women make sexual
remarks about guys or their students or about their male supervisors I think we
may be more likely to not say, "Oh that is offensive towards males" but to
think (and I don't think it's right) but I think some women are probably likely
to think that that wasn't harassment because that was a joke or whatever. You
know what I mean? I think people then are much more likely to report
...
behaviour happening from the other gender on them. You know what I mean?
And not the other way around. As maybe usually there are women talking
about guys in that way. "
In response to Florence's point, Cathy however insisted that women were more often
the victims:
"... Men are generally more likely to objectify women than women are to
objectify men. And by admission they are more likely to make sexually
explicit and harassing remarks. Um and I think women also are more likely to
infer emotions in other people than men and hence they are more careful in
what they are saying. "
Interestingly, within the analysis of the male focus group, the initial response that was
offered was that women tended to be the target, with the later agreement that it also
happened to men. They also agreed on the role of the power differential and that
perhaps this was more of a "top-down" thing in the case of the female victim.
Another very interesting perspective raised by Cathy was that in her own experience,
when women perpetrated harassment, it was usually done as a response to it
happening, to them, as a form of coping with this behaviour:
181
"And I would experience women actually doing sexual harassment only as a
response to men doing sexual harassment. So you know, when they are being
so objectified to the point that they can't walk pass the men that will Start
looking at their arse. [Women do it as] as a coping mechanism and as a
...
strategy to deal with the situation. "
Later Cathy summarised her own thoughts in the following:
"... I think it's to do with power, perception of power. Because I think that
most women feel less powerful um, in relation to men, physically at least and
probably social context is such that encourages them to feel less powerful. Um
and not to mention that women would have to work twice as hard to get
somewhere so they have to put up with these comments and then most of their
bosses are likely to be men as well, um, especially at a very high level. I
...
mean a classic relation is that of boss / secretary and it is so embedded
everywhere. I mean how many women have male secretaries?"
Hence the point was made that in general, men tend to have more senior positions
than women do, and with the agreement from both female and male focus groups that
sexual harassment tends to occur more often from the top down, women could
potentially be much more likely victims than men. And women who feel less
powerful, as Cathy describes either physically or psychologically, are perhaps more

likely to focus on the status of the instigator of the behaviour and interpret this as
harassment when the instigator has more power and / or is senior to them. Then the
detriment that the harassment has on women could be magnified if they have to keep
quiet because they find themselves having to work twice as hard to advance within an
old boy network.
8.2.2 Male Focus Group
When is it sexual harassment?

With respect to factors taken into account when interpreting behaviour as sexual
harassment, participants of the male focus group raised overall the same issues with
the female focus group.
U. 0 depends on the relationship: first of all David brought up the issue of the
.
nature of the relationship between the people involved in an incident:
i8-
"It would depend on your relationship with that person and if they were
your
friend with whom you would normally talk about such things. "
b) repeated behaviour: then Ben added to the above:
"It would possibly depend on how persistent that person was as well. If they
kept pressing then... "
So for Ben it was also about how the behaviour was conducted and if the instigator
was putting pressure on the recipient by being persistent. This is similar to the notion
of repeated behaviour raised by the female group as well and which the male group
also thought was a factor affecting the likelihood to report the behaviour as noted later
in this chapter.
c) to do with power / perceived threat: Aaron elaborated on this issue of
persistence:
"I think also that, and this goes back to the power thing almost, this person that
keeps persisting if they make you feel threatened then they are also gaining the
upper hand so they could be getting something out of it from that aspect as
well. "
And Ken agreed:
"Yeah, I mean I would find it harder to stop a conversation if it was my

supervisor that was asking me these questions. "
Hence again, as with the female focus group, the role of power and perceived threat
were recognised by the male focus group in the sense that such persistence can make
the recipient of the behaviour feel threatened, especially if the instigator is in a
position of power over the target who may feel that they have less freedom to react in
the situation.
d) perceived motive of perpetrator / sexual motive: At the same time, again as with
the female group, the notion of the perceived motive of the perpetrator was introduced
in the sense that the possibility that this person "could be getting something out of it"
183
made the behaviour even more likely to be viewed as harassment. And according to
David, this was definitely the case when the motive was viewed as sexual:
"Again it is that same thing of what it is that they would be getting out of the
conversation, and if it was a sexual matter then... If the person doing the
harassing gains some level or has the potential to gain some level of sexual
gratification and they are objectifying you in sexual terms. Whereas if there
are two straight guys it would be difficult then to assume that they would be
gaining any sexual gratification. You know, thinking that that person might be
getting out of it in sexual terms some type of gratification where they are
objectifying you. "
So, for David, the sexual orientation of the person doing the behaviour also played a
role in interpreting the behaviour, such that it was more likely to be perceived as
sexual harassment if the motive was thought to be sexual. This point was also raised
by the female focus group as noted above.
Finally, according to Ken, depending on the extent of the sexual nature of the
behaviour, it could be perceived as harassing, but not necessarily as sexual harassing:
"Also maybe I would call that harassment but not necessarily sexual
harassment. It's unpleasant... I think that if it were getting more and more
graphic, in that persistence then I
maybe would start getting more and more
uncomfortable. "
e) individual differences: So the male group, as with the female group, agreed that
interpreting behaviour as sexually harassing would depend on a number of factors
including the relationship between the people involved, the organisational role and
power of the perpetrator, if the behaviour was an isolated incident or repeated, on the
extent of the sexual nature of the behaviour and on the perceived motive of the
perpetrator. However again, as with the female it

group, was thought that interpreting
behaviour while taking into account the above factors was still a subjective matter,
one which very much depended on the people involved. In fact Eric actually said:
"... well you know its like some people you may have just met, but you can
talk about anything with them and then some people its always just going to be
really awkward. "
184
And when the interviewer asked participants what they thought
of suggestive stories
and offensive jokes, Ben responded:
"Yeah, still some people laugh with all these stories, you know, and
others do
get very offended... "
So Eric thought that some people were easier to talk to and more comfortable to be
around than others and hence certain comments and behaviours (i. e. questions about
one's love life) might have been more acceptable coming from them. In the same way
Ben felt that with respect to behaviours such as suggestive stories and offensive jokes,
there were also individual differences from the perspective of the target in the sense
that some people were in general more easily offended than others.
Culture was another factor that was raised by members of the female focus group as
discussed above, and hence the interviewer asked the male group if the cultural origin
of the perpetrator would affect their interpretation of an incident. However it should

be noted that the male focus group was homogenous (all participants were British) in
comparison to the female group that consisted of three British and three foreign
women. Hence people admitted that they did not have experience with other cultures
on the matter and hence culture did not affect their interpretations. Characteristically,
Ben said:
"No I wouldn't count that [culture] into my interpretations but also I wouldn't
have lots of different experiences from different cultures. "
Organisational climate
Concerning the organisational climate with respect to sexual harassment, members of
the male group were asked to indicate their perception of this and how they felt that
this affected their likelihood to report an incident. In response to this question, Ken
said:
--it would probably depend on the seriousness of the situation. I mean it
would swing to action if it were very serious... I don't think that I would
complain unless it was sufficiently serious and pretty much everybody agreed
with me that what happened was a bad thing. "
Then David added:
185
"Though it would take something of very high magnitude to actually galvanise
everybody to agree that it would constitute something bad. "
And later elaborated:
"... you don't know, within an organisation that other people would take it the
same way as you. You are relying on the agreement of other people that what
happened constitutes something bad. And when another male or female makes
an inappropriate and unwelcome sexual comment then there would be myriad
other ways in which other people would say that that sort of thing could have
been dealt with, at which point filing an official complaint can only mean war.
So you would suffer that potential I mean, "what are you getting all excited
about'? All you needed to do was... "
So there was this agreement that to report an incident it had to be sufficiently serious.
And this requirement appeared to be tied to the acceptance by one's colleagues that
what happened was significant enough to be reported. Thus respondents appeared to

be heavily influenced by the potential response of their peers suggesting they needed
their approval and feared possible retaliation if they did not get this. This suggested
that there was a climate of lower tolerance for more serious incidents and higher
tolerance for less serious incidents within the organisation. Such a climate could be
the result of the nature of the structures in place that this particular organisation had,
yet it is also likely that there were other cultural factors within the organisation that
were responsible for influencing the climate in this direction.
Ken also discussed the following as a factor affecting the decision to report:
"... it would probably have to happen more than once, it would take more than
one or two times for it to happen to report it. "
Hence behaviour had to be repeated rather than an isolated incident, if it was going to
get reported. This was in agreement with the beliefs of the members of the female
focus group who also thought that behaviour had to be repeated.
Ben also made the following comment that was mentioned earlier:
186
"And as a man I have to say that I would never report being sexually harassed
as well !! I mean I would just find it too embarrassing! !"
This point was made by one of the members of the female focus group as well, who
suggested that men were probably less likely to report being harassed out of
embarrassment in admitting and having to tell someone that this happened to them.
This issue of embarrassment for men was expected and comparable to how male
victims of sexual and domestic abuse and violence have been noted to react. It is also
likely that this potential embarrassment may have been another factor affecting the
comments of the male participants surrounding the requirement for behaviour to be
sufficiently serious in order for it to get reported.
Finally when participants were asked to indicate if they knew where to seek help and
what options were available to them in the event of an incident, Ben responded that he
would not know where to go and all other group members nodded in agreement.
Hence again, as with the female focus group, the members of the male focus group
also demonstrated a lack of knowledge of the systems in place for them.
Does it happen? And if so, who is harassing whom?

Then the interviewer asked participants if they had noticed such behaviours in their
organisation and if so to what extent. In answer to this question, Ken made an

interesting observation:
"I tend to know one or two people that tend to do it and then it's those people
that make it frequent. It's not necessarily widespread. "
So according to Ken, these behaviours were quite frequent in the organisation, but
they were attributed to a handful of people that repeated the behaviour so as to make it
widespread.
In answer to the same question, Ben said:
"It's not that uncommon really I think it happens with like a lot of unintended
stuff where the people that are doing it do not necessarily realise that they are
being offensive and where the people it happens to don't necessarily realise
they are being the victim of harassment... "
187
Hence in Ben's perception as well, these type of behaviours were
not uncommon, and
he also made the point that the perpetrators may of not intended to harass
and that
hence many people that did certain behaviours were not aware that
what they were
doing was wrong and he also thought that many victims were not aware that they
were
being victimised.
When the interviewer asked who tended to be the target of harassment in the
organisation, Ben started the conversation by stating that women tended to be the
target and Ken added that it also happened to men. David noted that in his opinion
sexual harassment was more of a top down occurrence for women, a statement that
was in agreement with the perceptions of the members of the female focus group as
mentioned earlier and which again could be attributed to more men advancing to the
more senior positions as opposed to women.
8.3 Conclusion
So what meaning did various behaviours have for participants? First of all, it should
be noted that there were no particular gender differences to be reported here.
Members of both the male and female groups elicited the same set of factors
according to which their interpretations were based. Both groups thought that
behaviour was more likely to be interpreted as sexual harassment the higher the power
of the perpetrator over the victim, the more sexually explicit the content of the
behaviour, the more persistent and threatening the behaviour, and when the instigator
was of the opposite sex (depending on their sexual orientation). In addition, members
of both groups believed that there are individual differences in perception and that
along with the above-mentioned factors, different people react to different behaviours
in different ways. Finally with respect to the question of who harasses whom,
members from both groups said that it was more of a top down occurrence and that
women tended to be the target more often than men, a fact which could be attributed
to more men being in positions of power as opposed to women.
188
CHAPTER 9
CONCLUSION
9.1 Introduction
The present research has developed perpetrator, victim and outcome models of
sexual
harassment that were tested initially on a male dominated police organisation and
subsequently on a more gender balanced academic organisation. This chapter will a)

outline the main findings of the present research, b) describe implications for theory
c) implications for method and d) implications for practice.
9.2 Main findings
The following sections discuss both the police (exploratory study) and university
(confirmatory study) models developed as part of the present research. The decision to
discuss both (and not only the confirmatory study) findings here was based on the
view that respective findings from each organisation had probable implications in
their own right.
9.2.1. Perpetrator models

More specifically, as detailed in previous chapters, the results of the male perpetrator
model in particular, suggest that for both samples (see Figures 5 and 13) the sole
predictor of both gender harassment as well as unwanted sexual attention was
attitudes towards sexual harassment such that men who took the issue of sexual
harassment less seriously were more likely to perpetrate both gender harassment and
unwanted sexual attention.
With respect to the female perpetrator model in both samples (see Figures 6 and 14),
again attitudes towards sexual harassment had a significant role in predicting
perpetrating, as in the male perpetrator model, only for females, attitudes predicted
gender harassment, that is less severe in nature, and not unwanted sexual attention,
189
that is more severe in nature, while females were also more likely to perpetrate gender
harassment the more the women (versus men) in their workgroup. Finally, the more
severe in nature unwanted sexual attention, was predicted by the personality trait of
agreeableness, that has been associated with niceness, compliance and social
desirability, and thus females that were nicer, more complaint and who liked to do
more socially desirable things were less likely to perpetrate unwanted sexual
attention.
190
Figure 19: Male Perpetrator Models (top police/bottom academic)
Organisation] )
Cortex
CJob
fender
Context
zlztzýtý,
ý,ý;ýsýý°; ý
`ý4 Gender
Harassment
Extravers on
-. 35 (. 11
Unwanted
Neurotikism Sexual
attention
36 (. 11)
Agreableness
Attitudes
Towards
Harassment a
Gender
58
58 (. 10) Harassment
-.
Attitudes
Towards
Harassment
Unwanted
48 (. 11) Sexual
-. Attention
191
Figure 20: Female Perpetrator Models (top police/bottom academic)
OrgaE isatk naI

Context
Job Gender
context
-. 26 (. 11)
Gender
Femininity Harassment
-. 22 (. 09
Extraversion
Unwanted
Sexual
attention
-. 34 (. 12)
-. 36 (. 16)
Gender
Harassment
-. 27 (. 14)
Unwanted
Sexual
Attention
Attitudes 25 (. 12)
Towards -,
Harassment
192
9.2.2 Victim models
Concerning the male victim model, male police (see Figure 8) were more susceptible
to gender harassment the more tolerant of sexual harassment they believed their
organisation to be, the more the women in their workgroup, and the higher they
scored on neuroticism. Neurotic individuals are in general more prone to various

stressors, and as harassment is a form of stressor, it is not difficult to see how this can
predict harassment here. Male police more likely to become victims of unwanted
sexual attention, also perceived their organisation as being more tolerant of sexual
harassment, and were high on the personality traits of openness and low on
conscientiousness. Openness has been associated with uninhibitness and it could be

that this characteristic makes people more approachable or even possibly invites
sexual behaviour towards them. This could also explain why openness here is found
to lead to unwanted sexual attention in particular, as this type of harassment is more
sexual in nature (i. e. touching) compared to gender harassment (which often involves
mostly sexist behaviours such as graffiti and pin-ups, and hence is not necessarily
directed towards a person) and it involves behaviours which are more serious. The
negative path from conscientiousness towards unwanted sexual attention appears a bit
problematic at first look. This trait has been associated with dutifulness, competence
and self-discipline and one would think that these people would want to get on with
their job and that they should be more bothered by and more likely to label behaviours
as harassment. Hence one would expect that people who lack conscientiousness are
less concerned with issues of harassment and are less likely to identify unwanted
sexual attention. However, when one takes into consideration the nature of the police
organisation, it is possible to see how less rule bound individuals could react within a
highly rule-bound organisation.
Concerning the academic male victim (see Figure 15), people that perceived their
organisation as being more tolerant of sexual harassment were more susceptible to

both gender harassment and unwanted sexual attention, and unwanted sexual attention
was also predicted by openness such that male academics more open to experience
werc less susceptible to unwanted sexual attention. This relationship was also found in
the police (as discussed above) but in the opposite direction. It is not entirely clear
191,
why this relationship should be in this direction in the academic sample, perhaps this
is related to some aspect of the occupational culture of this
organisation but one
cannot say for sure.
According to the female victim models (see Figure 9 and 16), neuroticism predicted
gender harassment as well as unwanted sexual attention among females in both the
police as well as the academic sample such that the more neurotic the individual the
more susceptible they were to both types of harassment. As mentioned above neurotic
individuals are in general more prone to various stressors, and as harassment is a form
of stressor, it is not difficult to see how this can predict harassment.
Finally in the female police sample, gender harassment was also predicted by
perceptions of a tolerant organisation towards harassment such that police women
were more likely targets the more they perceived their organisation as being tolerant
of sexual harassment. Yet one question that arises from this finding is whether women
officers are actually harassed because their organisation is tolerant, or whether women
officers infer that the organisation tolerates sexual harassment because they have
themselves been harassed. Some basic analysis were conducted here to examine
whether there were women who had been harassed who didn't think the organisation
tolerated harassment, and whether there were women claiming that the organisation
was tolerant although not harassed themselves. It was found that 47 women that were
harassed thought that the organisation was not tolerant, versus 56 women that were
harassed and perceived the organisation as tolerant. Finally, 5 women that were not
harassed reported that the organisation was tolerant, while 15 women that were not
harassed felt that the organisation was not tolerant. In the academic sample on the
other hand, organisational tolerance did not predict either gender harassment or
unwanted sexual attention. Thus, as discussed in more detail in chapter 7, the only
difference in results between the two samples here was related to an organisational
variable.
194
Figure 21: Male Victim models (top police/bottom academic)
("ý7gan'lsational
Context 33 (. 12)
Job Gender .
Context
4F
46 (. 14)
.
Gender
Harassment
Androgyny
26 (. 13)
. Unwanted
Sexual
Attention
-. 57(. 16) 33 (. 16)
Conscientious
ness
Openness
Neurotici
195
Figure 22: Female Victim Models m academic)
Organisational
Job Gender 19 (.08)

Context
Gender
Harassment
Androgyny
Femininity
Unwanted
Sexual
Attention
196
9.2.3 Outcome models
With respect to the outcomes model for the males, for the police sample (see Figure
11), police males utilised both internal (i. e. self blame and putting up
with the
behaviour) as well as external (i. e. confronting the harasser, talking about the incident
with a friend and reporting the behaviour) coping in response to sexual harassment,
while the more male police perceived their organisation as being tolerant of
harassment, the more likely they were to utilise internal coping strategies, which has
particularly significant implications as internal coping in turn lead to adverse

psychological health.
In the female outcomes model for the police sample (see Figure 12), female police
also utilised both internal as well as external coping strategies in response to

harassment, and again the more they perceived their organisation as being tolerant of
harassment, the more likely they were to utilise internal coping strategies. Finally
internal as well as external coping among females both lead to negatively affected
psychological health, although the value of the path from internal coping to
psychological health (0.58) compared to the path from external coping to
psychological health (0.17) seemed to suggest that the first had a much stronger
influence than the latter.
Regarding the male outcomes model for the academic sample (see Figure 17) internal
coping, as with the police sample, again lead to adverse psychological health.
However although police males utilised internal as well as external coping strategies
in response to harassment, males in the academic sample only utilised internal coping
strategies. It is possible that men in the academic sample did not utilise external
coping because of some aspect of their occupational climate.
With respect to the female outcomes model for the academic sample, (see Figure 18),
female academics utilised both internal as well as external coping strategies in
response to harassment and again internal coping lead to adversely affected
psychological health. Also the more females here perceived their organisation as
tolerant of harassment, the less likely they were to utilise external coping strategies
197
such as confronting the harasser or reporting an incident. Finally, female academics
that perceived their organisation to be tolerant of harassment suffered from negative
psychological outcomes. Again as noted before it is not difficult to see why perceived
organisational tolerance, being an organisational variable, affected different processes
across organisations.
198
Figure 23: Male Outcome Models (top police/bottom academic)
21 (. 10)
External
Coping
Sexual
Harassment
Psychological
30 (. 11) health
Internal
Coping 69 (. 09)
Organisational .
30 (. 10)
Context .
External
Sexual Coping
Harassment 26 (. 13)
.
Psychological
health
g0 (. 14)
Internal
Coping
199
24: Female Outcomes Models (top police/bottom academic)
17 (. 08)
48 (. 09) External
Coping
Sexual 38 (. 11)
Harassment Psychological
Health
Internal Coping
58 (. 09)
Organisational
27 (. 09
Context
34 (. 15) 50 (. 15)
Internal Coping .
Psychological
Sexual Health
Harassment
5z
24 (. 11)
200
9.3 Implications for theory
The aim of the present work was to extend the Fitzgerald model of antecedents
and
outcomes (Fitzgerald, et al., 1997) and the above findings suggest that this was
achieved in the following ways:
(a) Contrary to the Fitzgerald model that examined the total experience of sexual
harassment, the present work has developed models that examined gender
harassment and unwanted sexual attention separately.
Although sexual harassment involves a variety of behaviours (gender harassment,
unwanted sexual attention, sexual coercion), until now this has been investigated
as a whole. The present work, for the first time, allows us to investigate these
separately.
(b) In exploring gender harassment and unwanted sexual attention separately, the
present work examined not only organisational antecedents of harassment as

done by Fitzgerald, but a combination of person (Pryor et al, 1993) and
organisational determinants of each of these, by finding what person and what

organisational characteristics contribute to each type of harassment
individually.
(c) Models were developed to examine (a) and (b) for both perpetrators and
victims.
Regarding points "b" and "c", personality characteristics explored with reference to
victims were done as part of an effort to develop theory and to enhance our
understanding of the process involved as part of experiencing sexual harassment and

by no means with the intention of pathologising or victimising the victims further,
although inevitably this conclusion may be drawn by some.
201
Overall personality explanations have not been used in the literature
with reference to
victims, while with reference to propensisites to harass, there is the exception of
Larrimer_Scherbaum and Popovich (2001) who found agreeableness and openness to
be associated with likelihood to harass, and the work of Pryor and Meyers (2000)
who
found likelihood to be associated with consciensciousness.
(d) Separate models were developed to examine (a), (b) and (c) for mules and
fein al es.
(e) The present work has started to explore what inf7iteiice perceived
organisational tolerance has on choice of coping strategies.
(f) The present research has started to explore the influence of perceived
organisational tolerance onto psychological health outcomes directly.
(g) In exploring the mediating role of coping strategies on psychological
outcomes, the present work found internal coping to be associated with
negative psychological consequences, and these findings were consistent for
both males and females across both organisations.
This extends previous research (Coles, 1986; Culbertson, et. al., 1992; Hesson-
Mcinnis & Fitzgerald, 1997; Loy & Stewart, 1984; Terpstra & Cook, 1985,
USMSPB, 1988) that found external coping to be related to negative outcomes,
(that was also found in the present work but only among female police, while the
path was much weaker at 17 compared to the path found for internal coping at
.
58, in that particular model as well as compared to other paths from internal
.
coping to psychological health in all the other models that averaged even higher
than this).
Shneider, Swan, & Fitzgerald (1997), in their study of the outcomes of sexual
harassment, found that most of the women in their sample who experienced
202
harassment had to interact quite frequently with their perpetrator. Under
these
circumstances, it is not difficult to understand why adopting a less problem-
solving strategy, in addition to the negative consequences associated with self-

blame and the lack of social support in general, could have an adverse impact
on
the victim's psychological health. This finding has particularly worrying
implications for victims of harassment because in adding to literature (Coles,
1986; Culbertson, et. al., 1992; Hesson-Mcinnis & Fitzgerald, 1997; Loy &
Stewart, 1984; Terpstra & Cook, 1985; USMSPB, 1988) that found that external
coping also exacerbates outcomes, it suggests a lose-lose situation for victims

regardless of response strategy.
9.4 Implications for method
The sections that follow will discuss the limitations encountered in the present
research, most of which, as discussed in more detail in the method chapter, were
related to the delicate nature of the topic of sexual harassment that came with several
ethical, and as a result, methodological considerations, due to the great deal of care
that need be applied in these circumstances. This section will be followed by
recommendations for future research that could address these limitations and further
explore the results of the present work.
9.4.1 Limitations of the present research

Low response rate and sample size
Due to the sensitive nature of the present research as discussed earlier, the response
rates for the police and the university study questionnaire surveys were only about
26% and 27% each respectively. In particular, for the police study, a total of 1000
police and civilian members of staff were approached, 302 questionnaires were
returned, out of which 260 (135 male and 125 female) contained sufficient data to be
included in the analysis. For the university study, a total of 750 questionnaires were
sent out, 228 questionnaires were returned and of these 202 (118 male and 84 female)
contained sufficient data to be included in the analysis. Such low response rates are
actually very common in studies of sexual harassment, especially when postal
questionnaires are sent out to random samples instead of using convenience sampling
(Fitzgerald, 1990) which many studies of sexual harassment have relied on (i. e.
lectures and meetings), but although these produce very high response rates they are
203
never the less not very sound methodologically due to their non-random, non-
generalisable nature that is specific to the setting they take place in (Fitzgerald, 1990;
Arvey & Cavanaugh, 1995).
Advertising the survey before the distribution of the questionnaire (such as using
poster adverts in the canteen for instance) and follow-up questionnaires to boost
sample size returns were suggested by researchers, but the police organisation did not
allow either of these due to the limited time frame allowed between collection and
training input that they requested. Similarly, this was not possible for the academic
study either, as it was restricted by the academic organisation, due to the sensitive
nature of the research.
Low base rate for sexual coercion

Another limitation of the present research (although expected) was that due to the
very low base rate of sexual coercion in both samples, it was not possible to
incorporate this type of harassment in the structural equation models (SEMs) and
hence to explore the person and organisational determinants of this in relation to
perpetrating and experiencing this behaviour.
Outcome model limitations

With respect to outcomes for victims of harassment, the total experience of sexual
harassment as opposed to the effects of separate types of harassment were examined,

due to the fact that different categories of the behaviour typically co-occur and it is
not possible to examine the effects of each type of harassment individually
(Schneider, Swan, & Fitzgerald, 1997).
Also in relation to consequences of sexual harassment, in order to simplify the data
collection and analysis of the proposed model, outcome variables were limited to
psychological outcomes, while also exploring the role of organisational tolerance,

both directly on psychological consequences, as well as indirectly in examining the
effect of tolerance on choice of coping strategy, as well as the role of coping strategies
in mediating psychological health and to the exclusion of other organisational and
physical health variables utilised by Fitzgerald and colleagues.
O4
Inability to test measurement model
Due to the low response rate of both the police as well as the university
organisation
surveys, as described in more detail in the method chapter, it was not possible to test a
measurement model prior to the structural model. A measurement model links
observed variables to their latent (unobserved) constructs in order to establish that the
latent (unobserved) variables can be measured well. This utilises multiple
observed
measures (called manifest indicators) for each latent (unobserved) construct and
relates these to theoretical variables (or factors). Instead, the sample size obtained
from the present work was just about large enough to have a single measure (pre-
existing manifest indicator) for each latent construct, such that for instance the GHQ
measure was used alone as a single indicator to measure general health, rather than
using more than one measures of psychological health (i. e. GHQ and an additional
scale).
The use of negative affectivity as a covariate

Spector, Zapf, Chen and Frese (2000) argue that negative affectivity may actually
have a substantive role in the job stress process, which needs to be examined further,
and hence believe that it may not be appropriate for this to be used as a covariate. In
particular, they have outlined six mechanisms by which negative affectivity may play
a substantive role. These include the perception mechanism, the hyper-responsivity
mechanism, the selection mechanism, the stressor creation mechanism, the mood
mechanism and finally the causality mechanism. Mikkelsen and Einarsen (2002) have
related these mechanisms to bullying behaviour and suggest that at least three of the
above processes may potentially have a role in the relationship between workplace
bullying and strain outcomes. They believe that according to the perception
mechanism (Spector et. al., 2000) negative affectivity may affect how employees
actually interpret interpersonal behaviour at work, such that for instance individuals
high in negative affectivity may be more inclined to interpret behaviour as bullying
that may in turn lead to negative strain outcomes. With reference to the hyper-
responsivity mechanism (Spector et. al., 2000) Mikkelsen and Einarsen (2002) argue
that individuals high on negative affectivity may over-react to interpersonal behaviour
such that they may experience more adverse outcomes as a reaction to bullying.
Lastly, regarding the stressor creation mechanism suggested by Spector and
colleagues (2000), Mikkelsen and Einarsen (2002) suggest that individuals hign in
negative affectivity may in a way actually create an environment that exposes them to
bullying by way of being irritating others who may in turn react negatively towards
the individual.
Problems noted in the literature with measures
The Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ; Spence, Heimreich, & Strapp, 1974)
was developed to assessmasculine instrumentality and feminine expressiveness where

the masculinity (M) items were chosen to characterize personality traits that are
socially desirable and stereotypic of men rather than women (such as "competitive"
and "independent"), while the femininity (F) items were chosen to represent socially
desirable personality traits (i. e. "emotional") that are stereotypic of women (Lippa,
2001). Yet it should be noted that this measure has been criticised in the literature
(Palan, Areni, & Kiecker, 1999) as consisting dimensions beyond those that are
normally interpreted as masculinity and femininity, while in a comparison between

the PAQ (Spence, Helmreich, & Strapp, 1974), the Bern Sex Role Inventory (BSRI;
Bern, 1974), and the Sexual Identity Scale (SIS; Stern, Barak, & Gould, 1987), Palan
et al. (1999) found that while the femininity factors among these scales correlated
well, the masculinity factors between the three scales did not in fact correlate with
each other.
9.4.2 Recommendations for future research

This research has placed sexual harassment under the microscope investigating each
behavioural category of sexual harassment individually, examining precisely what
person and what organisational characteristics serve as determinants for each of these
and differentiating the dynamics behind perpetrating and experiencing behaviours,
while examining separate models for males and for females.
However, the present work was limited by its small sample size and future research is
needed to examine these models using larger samples that will allow for a more
statistically powerful examination of the above processes.
2 O6
In addition this framework should be examined in more organisational
contexts in
order to see if this could generalise to more organisations and explore its dynamics
within more occupational cultures.
While the quantitative data produced models of antecedents and consequences

of
harassment, what was less clear was the meaning that certain concepts actually had to
individuals. Thus some qualitative work in the form of focus group discussions
was
undertaken. This was inductive in nature, using a weak social constructionist
approach, in order to explore the meaning of certain concepts to individuals (i. e. what
it means to a female when her female versus male boss asks them about their sex life)
using thematic content analysis to identify themes, or categories of meaning generated

by the focus group discussions.
The central finding of this work was a number of factors that members of both the
male and female focus groups suggested that determined whether behaviour was
perceived as harassing or not. These included the nature of the relationship between
the instigator of the behaviour and the target, the degree of perceived threat (that did
not necessarily have to be physical in nature) of the behaviour, the role (status, power)
of the instigator towards the target, the extent of the sexual content of the behaviour,
the potential for the instigator to gain sexual gratification and thus on the gender and
sexual orientation of the instigator, and finally the perceived motivation of the person
that initiated the behaviour, and whether the behaviour was unwanted and repeated.
In fact this concept of the power of the perpetrator and their organisational role and
status in relation to targets that was raised by focus group participants, is central to
feminist explanations of sexual harassment. As discussed in more detail in chapter 2,
power is viewed as one way in which men maintain dominance over women both at
work but also in society in general (Brownmiller, 1975; Fitzgerald, 1992; MacKinnon,
1979), although power need not derive from gender exclusively but can also be
related to workplace infrastructure (Tangri, Burt & Johnson 1982). In addition Bargh
and colleagues (Bargh & Raymond, 1995; Bargh, Raymond, Pryor, & Strack, 1995)
even suggested that there is a non-conscious and automatic association between power
and sex, while Hoel et al. (2001) suggested that across organisational status groups,
the experience of bullying may actually vary and that different factors may actually
207
account for experiences of bullying across organisational status. Thus the results of
the present qualitative work in combination with the relatively low proportion of
variance accounted for by the antecedents of harassment in the present quantitative
models, suggest that perhaps future work could benefit from incorporating concepts
such as organisational role and status of the perpetrator and target, such as to examine
their role in relation to different types of sexual harassment.
In addition, members of both the male and female discussion groups suggested that
reporting being sexually harassed was thought to be very embarrassing for men and
thus something they would avoid. An examination of the male academic structural
model, in turn, suggested that males in this organisation did not utilise external coping
in response to sexual harassment and only utilised internal coping, while females in
this organisation utilised both types of coping. It would have been very interesting to
see what results of such discussions would of suggested in a police sample as well,
and how these may have related to the corresponding quantitative findings from this
sample. Thus future research in relation to the present framework could benefit from
more qualitative work, that would go beyond the inductive nature of the present
qualitative work, and provide further meaning to processes that would otherwise
remain unexplained both within samples but also by way of explaining differences in
models across various organisations.
Furthermore, due to the sensitive nature of the present work, perhaps future research
could also benefit by exploring this framework qualitatively with face-to-face
interviews, as opposed to focus groups. These could be a more appropriate and useful
method that could also tease out dynamics of experiencing and perpetrating behaviour
and could be conducted with people that have actually admitted to perpetrating
behaviour or to being targets.
Finally, as pointed out before, in order to simplify the data collection and analysis, the
present work was limited to the examination of psychological outcomes only and thus
future research would also benefit from the examination of more types of outcomes
and their role in the proposed framework.
08
9.5 Implications for practice
Adjusting policies to reflect differences by type of harassment

The present work has produced a framework that for the first time investigates
each
category of sexual harassment (gender harassment and unwanted sexual attention)
individually, rather than exploring sexual harassment as a whole and ignoring the
variety of behaviours involved and the possible difference in severity among these.
Within this framework, a combination of organisational and person antecedents are
examined separately for each type of harassment. This now enables organisations to
adjust their policies in such a way as to reflect differences by type of harassment. For
instance, according to the female victim model in the police organisation (Figure 9),
gender harassment was predicted by perceptions of a tolerant organisation (although
unwanted sexual attention was not). Thus this organisation may benefit from more
clear policies on gender harassment in particular, by adopting and more effectively
communicating, a zero tolerance for this type of harassment that may otherwise be
trivialised as being less severe in comparison to other types of sexual harassment.
Targeting attitudes and change at the very heart of occupational culture
Social psychological work such as the Theory of Reasoned Action by Fishbein and
Ajzen (1974; 1975), demonstrate the significance of attitudes in determining
intentions, which they state are the immediate causes of behaviours. The resulting
police and academic perpetrator models in particular, suggest how strong attitudes can
be in predicting sexual harassment behaviour, when out of a number of organisational
and personality variables, attitudes towards sexual harassment consistently predicted
on its own both gender harassment and unwanted sexual attention across two
completely different organisations such as the male dominated police and the more
gender balanced academic institution. This finding suggests how important it is for
organisations interested in the prevention of sexual harassment to target attitudes

towards this. Although adopting clear policies and grievance procedures is important
as discussed in the next few paragraphs, present results suggest that this may not work
on its own, without targeting attitudes first, which according to the following theory,
implies targeting change at the very heart of the occupational culture of an
organisation:
209
Triandis (1980) in his own attitude and behaviour theory suggests that
attributes of a
given culture/society determine attributes of individuals (i. e. attitudes, values), which,
in turn, determine the behaviours of individuals and changes will
occur in the
attributes of individuals depending on the outcomes of the behaviours. Hence if one
were to draw a parallel between a given society with an organisation and its existing
occupational culture, according to Triandis (1980) the attitudes and values nurtured by
the organisation should influence the attitudes and values of its employees with
respect to issues of harassment, which in turn, should determine the incidence or non-
incidence of harassing behaviours. Finally if the consequences of harassing
behaviours for the individuals that committed them were negative, because the
organisation had very little tolerance for such behaviour, then, according to this
theory, attitudes could change.
Awareness training can never be overestimated

Overall, the role of perceived tolerance, has been quite interesting because although it
appears to increase the likelihood of experiencing sexual harassment from the

perspective of the victim here (as consistent with the work of Fitzgerald and her
colleagues), it does not appear to have any effect on perpetrating. It is possible that
perpetrators don't actually consider their behaviour as harassing and hence
organisational tolerance is not relevant to them. If this is the case, then this fact could
have serious implications for organisations with respect to raising awareness. If on the
other hand perpetrators had some awareness of harassment issues but they didn't think
that their behaviour was serious enough for them to be concerned with disciplinary
action, then again, the importance of awareness becomes apparent. Awareness

training should involve regular workshops that go beyond stating the law, but that also
providing employees in organisations with a better understanding of the physical and
mental health consequences their actions may have on the recipient(s) of their
behaviour.
Clear and well-publicised policies of non-tolerance
The fact that the role of perceived organisational tolerance for both the male and
female outcome models in the police sample suggested that the more people perceived
their organisation as tolerant of harassment, the more likely they were to utilise
internal coping strategies (that were particularly associated with negative
210
psychological health in all outcome models of the present research), and the fact that
among female academics perceptions of a tolerant organisation were related to

negative psychological outcomes directly, should give a strong message to
organisations. And this message is related to the significance of making clear policies
of non-tolerance towards issues of harassment. These policies need to be well-

publicised (as part of regular efforts to communicate these not only in paper and
workshops, but also by informing all members of the institution of incidents that
actually occur and of suitable punishments that follow, such that reinforce the
organisations' non-tolerance), coupled with comprehensive and unambiguous
procedures that emphasise the confidentiality of reporting, and with a clear statement
of sanctions for retaliation such as to protect those making a report. Once again, this
would need to be done as part of a much larger effort that would involve targeting
attitudes found at the very centre of an organisation's occupational culture.
9.6 Concluding comments

Although, a higher incidence of behaviours was found in the police organisation (in
comparison to the academic institution), as anticipated, due to its traditionally male

dominated nature, macho ethic and negative attitudes towards women in the force,
never the less, it should be noted that these differences in incidence were actually
lower than expected. And if the reality of the university organisation examined in the
present research also happened to be the reality of other academic institutions at

present (as only further research could show) then one needs to consider why despite
decades of research, policy formation, legislation and awareness training, a large part
of which has actually come from academia, sexual harassment still persists in these
environments and at such high levels.
According to Dziech in Palludi and Palludi (2003: 151), sexual harassment is still a
problem in academia, because although by now policies, are in place, many of these
have not been revised since first introduced, awareness training may be in place but is
not always appropriately tailored for each organisation, consultants are not always
suitably qualified, courses are not as frequent as they should, research findings are not
properly shared and communicated to the outside world, image maintenance amongst
institutions has prevented knowledge of the true extent of the problem such as to be
able to deal with it on the appropriate scale, and finally backlash towards sexual
211
harassment and perceiving this as a threat to freedom of expression allows
perpetrators to use this as an excuse for their behaviour.
Finally, with reference to the conceptual framework developed in the present work,
as
research findings and implications suggest, the majority of processes involved in
perpetrating and experiencing different types of harassment, as well as in outcomes of
harassment, were sustainable across organisations.
As emphasised earlier, occupational culture, although believed to influence incidence
rates indirectly, due to the fact that it is a function of the nature of the mission and the
task of the organisation which attracts a different gender balance that, in turn,
influences incidence rates (i. e. Conrad & Gutek, 1986; Gutek, 1985; Gutek &
Dunwoody, 1987; Gutek & Morasch, 1982; Kanter, 1977), may not necessarily
explain differences in the models, because the principal relationships in these models
are stable across organisations. However where differences in relationships across

models are in relation to organisational variables such as perceived organisational
tolerance, in these instances it is suspected that organisational culture is likely to be
related to these differences. And as some of the present qualitative findings suggest,
these organisational influences may include knowledge (or lack of) related to systems
in place both with reference to support and advice, but also with reference to reporting
procedures, as well as fear of retaliation not only from the perpetrator or from the
organisation formally but also related to how colleagues may perceive or react to a
person making a formal complaint with reference to personal embarrassment and fear
of gossip etc, that are never the less, still associated with climate and with how the
organisation communicates its tolerance or non-tolerance of behaviour but also the

lengths to which it goes to educate its employees on these issues.
212
References
Anderson, R., Brown, J. & Campbell, E. A. (1993). Aspects of se_xdiscrimination

117
police forces in England and Wales. London: Home Office Police Research Group.
Arvey, R. D., & Cavanaugh, M. A. (1995). Using surveys to assess the prevalence of
sexual harassment: Some methodological problems. Journal of Social Issues, 51,39-

52.
Bailey, N., & Richards, M. (1985). Tarnishing the ivory tower: Sexual harassment in
graduate school programs in psychology. Presentation to the American Psychological

Association, Los Angeles.
Baker, N. L., (1989). Sexual harassment and job satisfaction in traditional and non-
traditional industrial occupations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, California

School of Professional Psychology, Los Angeles.
Baker D. D, Terpstra, D. E., & Cutler, B. D., (1990). Perceptions of sexual

harassment: A re-examination of gender differences. Journal of Psychology, 124,409-
416.
Bandy, N., (1989). Sexual harassment of female employees at a0 idwestern
univc'rsihv. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University.
Bargh, J., A., & Raymond, P., (1995). The naive misuse of power: nonconscious
sources of sexual harassment. Journal of social Issues, 51,85-96.
Bargh, J.A., Raymond, P., Pryor, J.B., & Strack, F., (1995). Attractiveness of the
underlying: An automatic power/ sex association and its consequences for sexual
harassment and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68,768-
781.
213
Benson, D. J. & Thomson, G. E. (1982). Sexual harassment on a university
campus:
The confluence of authority relations, sexual interest and gender stratification. Social
Problems, 29,236-251.
Brewer, J. (1991). Hercules, Hippolyte and the Amazons. British Journal of

Sociology, 42,231-247.
Brown, J..M., (1998). Aspects of discriminatory treatment of women police officers
serving in forces in England and Wales. British Journal of Criiiiinologv, 38,265-282.
Brown, J.M., (2000). Occupational culture as a factor in the stress experiences of
police officers. In F. Leishman, B. Loveday, & S. Savage (Eds. ), Core issues in
policing 2 iid Edition. London: Longmans.
Brown, J..M., Campbell, E. A., & Fife-Schaw, C. (1995). Adverse impacts
experienced by police officers following exposure to sex discrimination and sexual

harassment. Stress Medicine, 11,221-228.
Brown, J..M., & Heidensohn, F. (1996). Exclusion orders. Policing Today,

September.
Brown, J..M., & Heidensohn, F. (2000). Gender and policing. Basingstoke:

Macmillan.
Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will. Men, women and rape. New York: Simon
and Schuster.
Bursik, K., (1992). Perceptions of sexual harassment in an academic context. Sex
Roles, 27,401-412.
Coles, F. S. (1986). Forced to quit: Sexual harassment complaints and agency
response. Sex Roles, 14,81-95.
214
Cooke, R. A., & Rousseau, D. M. (1988). Behavioural norms and expectations: A
quantitative approach to the assessment of organisational culture. Group and

Organisation Studies, 13,245-273.
Crull, P. (1980). The impact of sexual harassment on the job: A profile of the
experiences of 92 women. In D. A. Neugarian & J.M. Shafritz (Eds. ), Sexuality, in
organisations: Romantic and coercive behaviours at work, pp. 67-71. Oak Park, IL:
Moor.
Culbertson, A. L., Rosenfeld, P., Booth-Kewley, S., & Magnusson, P. (1992).

Assessment of sexual harassment in the Navy: Results of the 1989 Nativ-vt'ide survey
(Report. No. NPRDCTR 92-11). San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and
Development Center.
Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Duldt, B. W. (1982). Sexual harassment in nursing. Nursing Outlook, 30,336-343.
Dzeich, B. W., & Weiner, L. (1984). Sexual harassment on campus: The lecherous
professor. Boston: Beacon Press.
Equal employment Opportunity Commission, (EEOC). (1980). Guidelines on

discrimination because of sex. Federal Register, 45,74676-74677.
Fain, T. C., & Anderton, D. L. (1987). Sexual harassment: Organisational context and
diffuse status. Sex Roles, 17,291-311.
Farley, L., (1978) Sexual shakedown: The sexual harassment of women on the job.
New York, Warner Books.
Fielding, N. (1994). Cop Canteen Culture. In T. Newburn & E. Stanko (eds). Just
boys doing business: Men, nzasculin1ties and crime (London: Routledge).
Fielding, N. (1999). Policing's dark secret. Sociological Research Online, 4
? ºs
Fielding, N., & Fielding, J. (1992). A comparative minority: Female
recruits to a
British Constabulary Force. Policing & Society, 2,205-218.
Finkbeiner, C. (1979). Estimation of the multiple factor model when data are missing.
Psychometrica, 44,409-420.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1974). Attitudes towards objects as predictors of single and
multiple behavioural criteria. Psychological Bulletin, 81,59-74.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intentions and behaviour: An
introduction to theory and research. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (1995). Ambivalence and stereotypes cause sexual
harassment: A theory with implications for organisational change. Joui-fial of Social
Issues, 51,97-115.
Fitzgerald, L. F. (1990). Sexual Harassment: The definition and measurement of a

construct. In M. Paludi (E. d. ), Sexual harassment on campus: Abusing the Non,
power. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Fitzgerald, L. F., (1990, March). Assessing strategies for coping with harassment: A
theoretical/empirical approach. Paper presented at the midwinter conference of the

Association of Women in Psychology, Tempe, AZ.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., Magley, V. J. (1997)
Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organisations: A test of an
integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 (4), 578-589.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., & Magley, V. J. (1999). Sexual harassment in the
armed forces: a test of an integrated model. Mil itany Psychology, 11,329-343.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Gelfand, M. J., & Drasgow, F. (1995). Measuring sexual harassment:
Theoretical and psychometric advances. Basic and Applied Psychology, 17,425-427.
? 16
Fitzgerald, L. F., Gold, Y., Brock, K., & Gelfand, M. (1995). Responses to
victiinisatioii: Validation of aii objective inventory to assess strategies for responding
to harassrnent. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Fitzgerald, L. F., & Hesson-McInnis, M., (1989). The dimensions of sexual

harassment: A structural analysis. Journal of' Vocational Behavior, 35,309-326.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Hulin, C. L., & Drasgow, F. (1995). The antecedents and
consequences of sexual harassment in organisations: An integrated model. In G. Keita
& J. Hurrell, Jr. (Eds. ), Job stress in a changing workforce: Investigating gender,
diversity and fannily issues (pp. 55-73). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Fitzgerald, L. F., & Ormerod, A. J. (1991). Perceptions of sexual harassment: the

influence of gender and context. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15,281-294.
Fitzgerald, L. F., & Ormerod, A. J. (1993). Breaking silence: The sexual harassment
of women in academia and the workplace. In F. Denmark & M. Paludi (Eds. ),

Psychology of women: A handbook of issues and theories (pp. 553-582). Westport,
CT: Greenwood Press.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Shullman, S. L., Baily, N., Richards, M., Swecker, J., Gold, A.,
Ormerod, A. J., & Weitzman, L. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of sexual
harassment in academia and the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32,152-
175.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Swan, S., & Fischer, (1995). Why didn't she just report him? The
psychological and legal implications of women's responses to sexual harassment.
Journal of Social Issues, 51,117-138.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1989). Manual of the ways of coping inventory. Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
217
Frazier, P.A., Cochran, C. C., & Olson, A. M. (1995). Social science
research on lay
definitions of sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51,21-37).
Glomb, T. M., Munson, L. J., Hulin, C. L., Bergman, M., E., Drasgow, F. (1999).
Structural equation models of sexual harassment: longitudinal explorations and

cross-
sectional generalisations. Jouo-iial of Applied Psychology, 84,14-28.
Golberg, D. P. & Williams, P. (1988). A user's guide to the general health
questionnaire. Windsor: NFER-Nelson.
Grauerholz, E. (1989). Sexual harassment of women professors by students:

Exploring the dynamics of power, authority, and gender in a university setting. Sex
Roles, 21,789-801.
Gruber, J.E. (1989). How women handle sexual harassment: A literature review.
Sociology and Social Research, 74,3-9.
Gruber, J.E. (1992, March). The sexual harassment experiences of women in iion-
traditional jobs: results from cross-national research. Paper presented at the first
National Conference on Sex and Power Issues in the workplace. Bellevue, WA, USA.
Gruber, J. & E., Bjorn L., (1982). Blue-collar blues: The sexual harassment of women
autoworkers. Work and Occupations, 9,271-298.
Gruber, J., & Bjorn, L. (1982). Blue-collar blues: The sexual harassment of women
autoworkers. Work and Occupations, 9,271-298.
Gutek, B. (1985). Sex and the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gutek, B. A., Cohen, A. G., & Konrad, A. M., (1990). Predicting social-sexual
behaviour at work: A contact hypothesis. Academy of Management Journal, 33,560-
577.
-118
Gutek, B., & Dunwoody, V. (1987). Understanding sex in the work place. In
Stromberg et. al. (Eds. ), Women and work. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Gutek, B. A., & Koss, M. P., (1993). Changed women and changed organisations:
Consequences of and coping with sexual harassment. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

42,28-48.
Gutek, B. A., & Morasch B. (1982). Sex-ratios, sex-role spill over, and sexual
harassment of women at work. Journal of Social Issues, 38,55-74.
Hammersley, M. (1996). The politics of social research. London: Sage Publications
Heidensohn, F. (1994). Women can handle it out here: women officers in Britain and
the USA and the policing of public order. Policing and Society, 4,293-303.
Henwood, K. L., & Pidgeon, N. F. (1992). Qualitative research and psychological
theorizing. British Journal of Psychology, 83,97-106.
Hesson-McInnis, M. S., & Fitzgerald, L. F., (1997). Sexual Harassment: A preliminary
test of an integrative model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27,877-901.
Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2000). Destructive conflict and bullying at 'C'ork.
Manchester School of Management.
Hoel, H., Cooper, C. L., Faragher, B. (2001). The experience of bullying in Great
Britain: The impact of organisational status. European Journal of Work and

Organisational Psychology, 10,443-465.
Hulin, C. L. (1993, May). A framework for the study of sexual harassment in
organ isations: Climate, stressors, and patterned responses. Paper presented at the
Society for Industrial Organisational Psychology. San

annual meeting of the and
Franscisco.
219
Hulin, C. L., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Drasgow, F. (1996). Organisational influences
on
sexual harassment. In M. Stockdale (Ed. ), Sexual harassment in the workplace, 5,
127-150. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
flies, R., Hauserman, N., Schwochau, S., Stibal, J. (2003). Reported incidence rates of
work-related sexual harassment in the United States: Using meta-analysis to explain
reported rate disparities. Personnel Psychology, 56,607-630.
John, O. P., Donohue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five Inventory: Versions
4a and 54. Technical report, Institute of Personality and Social Research, University
of California, Berkley, CA.
Jones, T. S., & Remland, M. S. (1992). Sources of variability in perceptions of and
to
responses sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 27,121-142.
Judge, T. R., & Hulin, C. L. (1993). Job satisfaction as a reflection of disposition: A
multiple source causal analysis. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision
Processes, 56,388-421.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life; skewed sex ratios and
responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82,965-990.
Konrad A. M., & Gutek, B. A., (1986). Impact of work experiences on attitudes
,
towards sexual harassment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31,422,438.
Koss, M. P., Leonard, K. E., Beezley, D. A., & Oros, C. J., (1985). Nonstranger sexual
aggression: A discriminant analysis of psychological characteristics of undetected
offenders. Sex Roles 12,981-992.
Lafontaine, E., & Tredeau, L. (1986). The frequency, sources and correlates of sexual
harassment among women in traditional male occupations. Sex Roles, 15,433-442.
Larrimer-Scherbaum, K., & Popovich, P. (2001, April). The relationship between
personality and the proclivity to sexual/v harass. Paper presented at the annual
2? O
meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organisational Psychology, San Diego, CA.
USA.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York:
Springer.
Lee, R. M., (1993), Doing research on sensitive topics, London: Sage Publications.
Lengnick-Hall, M. L., (1995). Sexual harassment research: A methodological critique.
Personnel Psychology, 48,841-864.
Lester, D., Banta, B., Barton, J., Elian, N., Mackiewicz, L., & Winkelried, J. (1986).
Judgements about sexual harassment: Effects of the power of the harasser. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 63,990.
Lott, B., Reilly, M. E., & Howard, D. (1982). Sexual assault and harassment: A
campus community case study. Signs, 8,296-319.
Loy, P., & Stewart, L. P. (1984). The extent and effect of the sexual harassment of
working women. Sociological Focus, 17,31-43.
Kanter, R. M. (1997). Men and Women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Luthans, F. (1995). Organisational behaviour, 7thedn. New York: McGraw-Hill.
MacKinnon, C., (1979) Sexual harassment of working women: A case of sex

discrimination. New Haven, C. T: Yale University Press.
Malarnuth, N. M. (1986). Predictors of naturalistic sexual aggression. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 50,953-962.
Malamuth, N., (1981) Rape proclivity among males. Journal of Social Issues, 37,
138-154.
221
Martin, S.E. (1980). Breaking and entering: Policewomen Berkeley:
on patrol.
University of California Press.
Martin, S.E. (1984). The link between stratification, sexuality, and women's
economic status. In J. Freeman (Ed. ), Women: A feminist perspective. Palo Alto, CA:
Mayfield.
Martindale, M. (1990). Sexual harassment in the militant': 1988. Arlington, VA:

Defence Manpower Data Center.
Maruyama, G. M. (1998). Basics of structural equation modelling. London: Sage
McKinney, K. (1990). Sexual harassment of university faculty by colleagues and
students. Sex Roles, 23,421-438.
Mezey, G., & Rubenstein, M., (1991). Sexual harassment: the problem and its
consequences. Journal of'Forensic Psychiatry, 3 (2), 221-232.
Millward, L. (2000). Focus groups. In G. M. Breakwell, S. Hammond, C. Fife-Scaw

(Eds. ), Research methods irr psychology. London: Sage Publications.
Millward, L. (2003, August). Workshop for the Police Complaints Authority.
Munson, L. J., Hulin, C., & Drasgow, F. (2000). Longitudinal analysis of dispositional
influences and sexual harassment: Effects on job and psychological outcomes.
Naylor, J. C., Pritchard, R. D., & I1gem, D. R., (1980). A theory of behavior in
organisations. New York: Academic Press.
Palludi, M. (1990). Sexual harassment on campus: Abusing the ivory power. Albany:
State University of New York Press.
»ý
Pryor, J.B., (1985). The lay person's understanding of sexual harassment. Sex Roles,
13,273-278.
Pryor, J. B., (1987). Sexual harassment proclivities in men. Sex Roles, 17,269-290.
Pryor, J.B., & Day, J.D., (1988). Interpretations of sexual harassment: An attributional
analysis, Sex Roles, 18,407-417.
Pryor, J. B., Giedd, J. L., & Williams, K. B. (1995). A social psychological model for
predicting sexual harassment. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 68,768-

781.
Pryor, J.B., & LaVite, C., & Stoller, L. (1993). A social psychological analysis of
sexual harassment: The person/situation interaction. Journal of' Vocational Behaviour,

42,68-83.
Pryor, J.B., & Meyers, A. B. (2000). Men who sexually harass women. In L. B.
Schlesinger (Ed. ), Serial offenders: Current thought, recent findings, unusual
syndromes (pp. 207-228). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Pryor, J.B., & Stoller, L. (1994). Sexual cognition processes in men who are high in
the likelihood to sexually harass. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20,163-
169.
Ramazanoglu, C. (1987). Sex and violence in academic life or you can keep a good
woman down. In J. Hammer & M. Maynard (Eds. ), Women, violence and social
control. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: humanities Press International.
Reiner, R. (2001). The politics of the police, 3`d edn. Oxford: University Press.
Regan, P. C., (1997). The impact of male sexual request style on perceptions of sexual
interactions: The mediational role of beliefs about female desire. Basic and Applied
Social Psvcholog>y, 19,519-532.
223
Reily, T., Carpenter, S., Dull, V., & Bartlett, K. (1982). The factorial
survey: An
approach to defining sexual harassment on campus. Journal of Social Issues, 38,99-
110.
Schneider, K. T., Swan, S., & Fitzgerald, L. F., (1997). Job-related and psychological
effects of sexual harassment in the workplace: Empirical evidence from two
organisations. Journal of'Applied Psychology, 82,401-415.
Schein, E. H. (1990). Organisational Culture. American Psychologist. 45,109-119.
Sieber, J. & Stanley, B. (1988). Ethical and professional dimensions of socially
sensitive research. American Psychologist, 42,49-55.
Silverman, D. (1976). Sexual harassment: Working women's dilemma. Quist: A

Feminist Quarterly, 3 (Winter), 125-129.
Southgate, P. (1986). Police Public Encounters. London: HMSO.
Spence, J.T., Heimreich, R., & Strapp, J. (1974). The Personal Attributes
Questionnaire: A measure of sex-role stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. JSAS
Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 4,127.
Spence, J.T., Helmreich, R., & Strapp, J. (1975). Ratings of self and peers on sex-role
attributes and their relation to self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and

femininity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32,29-39.
Stockdale, M. S., (1990). What we know and what we need to learn about sexual
harassment. In M. Stockdale (Ed. ), Sexual harassment in the workplace: perspectives,
frontiers & response strategies (3-25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stohr, M. K., & Beck, A. C., (1994). "He said, she said": sexual harassment in the
fractured criminal justice workplace. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 18,235-
257.
224
Tabachnic, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using »llrltii'ariate NY':
statistics.
HarperCollins Inc.
Tangri, S., Burt, M., & Johnson, L. (1982). Sexual harassment

at work: Three
explanatory models. Journal of Social Issues, 38,33-54.
Terpstra, D. E., (1989). Who gets sexually harassed? Personnel Administrator, 34,84-
88.
Terpstra, D. E., & Baker, D. D. (1986). A framework for the study of sexual
harassment. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7,17-34.
Terpstra, D. E., & Cook, S. E., (1985). Complaint characteristics and reported
behaviours and consequences associated with formal sexual harassment charges.
Triandis, H. C. (1980). Values, attitudes and interpersonal behaviour. In H. Howe &

M. M. Page (Eds. ), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Beliefs, attitudes, and values,
(195-125). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1981). Sexual harassment of federal workers:

is it a problem? Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1987). Sexual harassment of federal workers:
An update. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1994). Sexual harassment in the federal
workplace: Trends, progress, continuing challenges. Washington, DC: U. S.
Government Printing Office.
Vaux, A. (1993). Paradigmatic assumptions in sexual harassment research: Being
guided without being led. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 42,116-135.
225
Waddington, P.A. J., (1999). Police (canteen) sub-culture. British Journal of
Criminology, 39,287-302.
Walklate, S., (1995). Equal opportunities and the future of policing. In F. Leisham, B.
Loveday & S. Savage (Eds. ), Core issues in policing (London: Longman).
Wasti, S. Arzu, Bergman, M. E., Glomb, T. M., & Drasgow, F. (2000). Test of the
cross-cultural generalisability of a model of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 85,766-778.
Weitz, J. (1952). A neglected concept in the study of job satisfaction. Personnel

Psvchologv, 5,201-205.
Wilkinson, J.D., & Campbell, E. A. (1997). Psychology and Counselling in

Therapeutic Practice. New York, Wiley.
Zalk, S. R., (1990). Men in the Academy: A Psychological Profile of Harassers. In M.

Palludi, (Ed. ), Sexual harassment on college campuses: Abusing the ivory power.
Albany, State University of NY Press.
Zickar, M. J. (1994, April). Antecedents of sexual harassment in organisations. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial/Organisational
Psychology, Nashville, TN.
226
APPENDIX A
Table 40: T-tests by gender for police
T-tests by gender for police
t-test
t Sig.
gh 957 339
. .
usa -2.485 014
.
sc -. 597 551
.
gh -. 509 611
.
usa -3.803 000
.
sc -. 816 415
.
external -3.257 001
.
internal 424 672
-. .
harassment 181 856
-. .
Note: "gh": gender harassment, "usa": unwanted sexual attention, "sc": sexual coercion
Table 41: Police sample means by gender
Std.
gender N Mean Deviation
gh perpetrator male 136 1.3147 4339
.
female 128 1.2625 4523
.
usa perpetrator male 136 1.0868 1943
.
female 128 1.1578 2628
.
sc perpetrator male 136 1.0059 0685
.
female 128 1.0156 1768
.
gh experience male 135 5704 5675
. .
female 128 6078 6262
. .
usa experience male 135 0867 1711
. .
female 128 2377 4171
. .
sc experience male 135 0074 0400
. .
female 128 0156 1096
. .
external coping male 96 4875 5160
. .
female 101 8310 9186
. .
internal coping male 96 1.0458 9396
.
female 101 1.1050 1.0149
harassment attitudes male 135 5.0148 7002
.
female 126 5.0317 8070
.
"gh": gender harassment, "usa": unwanted sexual attention, "sc": sexual coercion
227
Table 42: T-tests by gender for university sample
T-tests by gender for university sample
t-test
t Sig.
gh perpetrator 2.563 011
.
usa perpetrator -. 437 663
.
gh experience 537 592
. .
usa experience -3.703 000
.
sc experience -. 858 392
.
internal coping 005
-2.913 .
external coping -1.225 223
.
harassment attitudes 586 559
-. .
Note: "gh": gender harassment, "usa": unwanted sexual attention, "Sc": sexual coercion
Table 43: University sample means by gender

Std.
gender N Mean Deviation
gh perpetrator male 118 1.3186 5399
.
female 84 1.1595 3412
.
usa perpetrator male 118 1.1424 2913
.
female 84 1.1595 2499
.
gh experience male 118 3339 4192
. .
female 84 3024 3994
. .
usa experience male 118 0242 0628
. .
female 84 1310 2588
. .
sc experience male 118 0014 0153
. .
female 84 0060 0546
. .
external coping male 72 3259 5100
. .
female 48 6722 7106
. .
internal coping male 72 1.0889 8491
.
female 48 1.2875 9000
.
harassment attitudes male 117 4.9954 7149
.
female 84 5.0714 1.0237
"gh": gender harassment, "usa": unwanted sexual attention, "sc": sexual coercion
l'1
Table 44: Anovas by age group for male police sample
F Siq.
gh perpetrator 328 859
. .
usa perpetrator 366 832
. .
sc perpetrator 510 729
. .
gh experience 1.508 204
.
usa experience 1.586 182
.
sc experience 363 834
. .
external coping 384 820
. .
internal coping 107 980
. .
. .
Table 45: Means by age group for male police sample
age prptr prptr ext int attitul

grp prptr h usa sc h exp usa exp sc exp cope cope es
2.00 Mean 1.3125 1.1250 1.0000 5067 1810 0111 5889 1.133 5.005
. . . .
N 16 16 16 15 15 15 12 12 16
Std.
4440 2517 0000 3918 2830 0430 4338 9277 6951
Dev . . . . . . . . .
3.00 Mean 1.2957 1.0826 1.0000 6261 0870 0072 4495 9657 5.109
. . . . .
N 46 46 46 46 46 46 35 35 45
Std.
3972 1554 0000 6621 1607 0344 4656 8977 7394
Dev . . . . . . . . .
4.00 Mean 1.3721 1.1023 1.0186 6884 0764 0116 5333 1.073 5.003
. . . .
N 43 43 43 43 43 43 33 33 43
Std.
4548 2405 1220 5762 1298 0563 5878 1.033 7052
Dev . . . . . . . .
5.00 Mean 1.3000 1.0615 1.0000 3923 0495 0000 3778 1.107 4.891
. . . .
N 26 26 26 26 26 26 15 15 26
Std.
4972 1472 0000 4289 1562 0000 5547 9438 6675
Dev . . . . . . . . .
Total Mean 1.3212 1.0894 1.0061 5817 0862 0076 4849 1.046 5.015
. . . .
N 132 132 132 131 131 131 95 95 131
Std.
4384 1966 0696 5708 1706 0406 5181 9446 702 B
Dev . . . . . . . .
22
Table 46: Anovas by Age group for female police sample
F Sig.
. .
usa perpetrator 1.821 129
.
. .
.
.
. .
external coping 2.675 037
.
internal coping 1.939 111
.
harassment attitudes 1.165 330
.
Table 47: Means by Age group for female police sample
age usa sc ext int

grp h prptr prptr prptr h exp usa exp sc exp cope cope attitude
1.00 Mean 1.0000 1.1000 1.0000 0000 0714 0000 2.3333 0000 6.0000
. . . .
N 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2
Std.
0000 1414 0000 0000 1010 0000 1088
Dev . . . . . . .
2.00 Mean 1.2474 1.2526 1.0526 7474 3045 0395 8688 1.369 4.9980
. . . .
N 38 38 38 38 38 38 32 32 38
Std.
4298 3143 3244 6985 5569 1915 9777 1.113 8954
Dev . . . . . . . .
3.00 Mean 1.2941 1.1451 1.0000 6353 2745 0065 9383 1.150 5.0923
. . . .
N 51 51 51 51 51 51 40 40 50
Std.
5267 2715 0000 6971 3968 0467 8820 1.004 8213
Dev . . . . . . . .
4.00 Mean 1.2783 1.1304 1.0000 3652 0621 0000 4431 6588 4.8395
. . . . .
N 23 23 23 23 23 23 17 17 23
Std.
3849 1769 0000 2604 1040 0000 4933 8825 6377
Dev . . . . . . . . .
5.00 Mean 1.1333 1.0000 1.0000 6000 0952 0000 0500 6000 5.1538
. . . . .
N 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 4 6
Std. 5164 7413
1633 0000 0000 3578 1475 0000 1000
Dev . . . . . . . . .
Total Mean 1.2633 1.1683 1.0167 6067 2310 0153 8021 1.100 5.0317
. . . .
N 120 120 120 120 120 120 94 94 110
Std. 1.031 8102
4528 2682 1826 6308 4183 1123 8773
Dev . . . . . . . .
230
Table 48: Anovas by age group for male university sample
F Sig.
.
.
.
usa experience 280 840
. .
. .
.
. .
Table 49: Means by age group for male university sample
age
grp h prptr usa prptr h exp usa exp ext cope int cope atttude
2.00 Mean 1.4923 1.2615 4923 0220 4074 8889 4.8639
. . . .
N 13 13 13 13 9 9 13
Std. Dev 6861 4032 5923 0536 6859 6254 8173
. . . . . . .
3.00 Mean 1.3800 1.1867 3867 0333 1778 9778 5.0477
. . . .
N 30 30 30 30 18 18 29
Std. Dev 5314 2623 4637 0720 2955 8229 8609
. . . . . . .
4.00 Mean 1.3314 1.1143 2400 2.041 E-02 3407 1.4222 5.105,:-)
. .
N 35 35 35 35 18 18 35
Std. Dev 6434 3300 3813 0614 4032 8701 6683
. . . . . . .
5.00 Mean 1.2050 1.0950 3250 0214 3877 1.0074 4.9033
. . .
N 40 40 40 40 27 27 4J
Std. Dev 3637 2218 3380 0610 6169 8970 6049
. . . . . . .
Total Mean 1.3186 1.1424 3339 0242 3259 1.0889 4.9954
. . .
N 118 118 118 118 72 72 117
Std. Dev 5399 2913 4192 0628 5100 8491 7149
. . . . . . .
?31
Table 50: Anovas by age for female university sample
F Sig.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
. .
Table 51: Means by age for female university sample
age external internal

grp h prptr usa prptr hex usa exp cope cope attitude
2.00 Mean 1.3333 1.2571 4667 2109 5542 1.3750 5.1612
. . .
N 21 21 21 21 16 16 21
Std.
4397 3234 4575 2287 7419 9263 1.2052
Dev . . . . . .
3.00 Mean 1.1565 1.1478 3217 1863 8905 1.6000 5.19013
. . .
N 23 23 23 23 14 14 23
Std.
4262 2574 4738 3666 7352 8339 9503
Dev . . . . . . .
4.00 Mean 1,0762 1,1048 2000 0476 5778 5,073,3
77630 ,
N 21 21 21 21 9 9 21
Std.
1609 1746 2828 0940 6147 5783 90513
Dev . . . . . . .
5.00 Mean 1.0632 1.1263 2105 0677 4519 1.3556 4.8259
. . .
N 19 19 19 19 9 9 19
Std.
1342 2023 2942 2302 7093 9632 1.0544
Dev . . . . . .
Total Mean 1.1595 1.1595 3024 1310 6722 1.2875 5.0714
. . .
N 84 84 84 84 48 48 84
Std.
3412 2499 3994 2588 7106 9000 1.0237
Dev . . . . . .
232
Table 52: T-tests by staff category for male police sample
t Sig.
gh perpetrator -. 449 654
.
usa perpetrator -1.306 194
.
. .
gh experience -1.288 200
.
usa experience -1.109 269
.
sc experience -. 193 848
.
. .
.
-. .
Table 53: Means by staff category for male police sample
support Std.
staff N Mean Deviation
gh perpetrator yes 74 1.2973 4420
.
no 61 1.3311 4288
.
usa perpetrator yes 74 1.0676 1562
.
no
61 1.1115 2324
.
sc perpetrator yes 74 1.0108 0930
.
no 61 1.0000 0000
.
gh experience yes 73 5068 5508
. .
no 61 6328 5787
. .
usa experience yes 73 0724 1564
. .
no 61 1054 1879
. .
sc experience yes 73 0068 0434
. .
no 61 0082 0363
. .
external cope yes 49 5061 5735
. .
no 46 4638 4578
. .
internal cope yes 49 1.1551 9646
.
no 46 9217 9165
. .
attitude yes 73 4.9779 6524
.
no 61 5.0454 7550
.
233
Table 54: T-tests by staff category for female police
sample
t Sig.
gh perpetrator -. 522 603
.
usa perpetrator -1.218 226
.
sc perpetrator 1.000 321
.
gh experience -2.421 017
.
usa experience -. 850 397
.
. .
external coping -1.734 086
.
-. .
harassment attitudes 220
-1.234 .
Table 55: Means by staff category for female police sample
support Std.
staff N Mean Deviation
perpetrator gh yes 60 1.2433 4405
.
no 65 1.2862 4743
.
perpetrator usa yes 60 1.1300 2465
.
no 65 1.1877 2804
.
perpetrator sc yes 60 1.0333 2582
.
no 65 1.0000 0000
.
experience gh yes 60 4600 5066
. .
no 65 7200 6744
. .
experience usa yes 60 2000 4542
. .
no 65 2637 3832
. .
experience yes 60 0222 1518
. .
no 65 0103 0500
. .
external cope yes 43 6512 6871
. .
no 55 9455 9900
. .
internal cope yes 43 1.0698 1.0281
no 55 1.1309 1.0221
attitude yes 59 4.9322 7849
.
no 64 5.1106 8156
.
234
Table 56: T-tests by staff category for male university sample
t Siq.
. .
usa perpetrator -. 306 760
.
gh experience 506 614
. .
usa experience 570 569
. .
external coping -. 343 733
.
. .
harassment attitudes 1.097 275
.
Table 57: Means by staff category for male university sample
Std.
staff category N Mean Deviation
perpetrator gh support 34 1.3353 6414
.
academic 84 1.3119 4971
.
perpetrator usa support 34 1.1294 3580
.
academic 84 1.1476 2618
.
experience gh support 34 3647 4334
. .
academic 84 3214 4154
. .
experience usa support 34 0294 0769
. .
academic 84 0221 0565
. .
experience sc support 34 0049 0286
. .
academic 84 0000 0000
. .
external cope support 23 2957 5482
. .
academic 49 3401 4963
. .
internal cope support 23 1.0957 8221
.
academic 49 1.0857 8699
.
attitude support 34 5.1086 7585
.
academic 83 4.9490 6958
.
235
Table 58: T-tests by staff category for female university sample
t Sig.
. .
. .
.
.
. .
.
-. .
Table 59: Means by staff category for female university sample
Std.
staff category N Mean Deviation
perpetrator gh support 40 1.1900 3622
.
academic 44 1.1318 3226
.
perpetrator usa support 40 1.1850 2578
.
academic 44 1.1364 2431
.
experience gh support 40 3500 4478
. .
academic 44 2591 3493
. .
experience usa support 40 1679 3168
. .
academic 44 0974 1894
. .
experience sc support 40 0000 0000
. .
academic 44 0114 0754
. .
external cope support 24 7194 7859
. .
academic 24 6250 6400
. .
internal cope support 24 1.5083 9726
.
academic 24 1.0667 7794
.
attitude support 40 5.0385 1.1418
academic 44 5.1014 9157
.
? 36
Table 60: Anovas by front line for male police
F Siq.
. .
. .
. .
.
.
sc experience 1.710 193
.
. .
.
. .
Table 61: Means by front line for male police
front prptr prptr gh usa external internal

line prptr gh usa sc exp exp sc exp cope cope attitude
yes Mean 1.3217 1.0986 1.0116 6580 1222 0121 4790 1.1407 5.0056
. . . .
N 69 69 69 69 69 69 54 54 69
Std.
4301 2186 0963 5751 2068 0521 4644 1.0203 7114
Dev . . . . . . . .
no Mean 1.3000 1.0774 1.0000 4754 0539 0027 5162 8974 5.0378
. . . . .
N 62 62 62 61 61 61 39 39 61
Std.
4387 1712 0000 5516 1171 0213 5945 8409 6911
Dev . . . . . . . . .
Total Mean 1.3115 1.0885 1.0061 5723 0901 0077 4946 1.0387 5.0207
. . . .
N 131 131 131 130 130 130 93 93 130
Std.
4326 1971 0699 5694 1735 0408 5202 9520 6994
Dev . . . . . . . . .
217
Table 62: Anovas by front line for female police
F Sig.
. .
.
sc perpetrator 1.017 315
.
.
.
. .
external coping 2.490 118
.
. .
. .
Note: "`gh": `genderharassment, "usa": unwanted sexual attention, "sc": sexual coercion
Table 63: Means by front line for female police
usa sc gh usa ext

front line h prptr prptr prptr exp exp sc exp cope int cope attitude
yes Mean 1.2933 1.2033 1.000 7467 2619 0111 9493 1.1240 5.073D
. . . .
N 60 60 60 60 60 60 50 50 59
Std.
4878 2864 0000 6798 3786 0520 9753 1.0536 8238
Dev . . . . . . . .
no Mean 1.2508 1.1288 1.034 4475 1792 0226 6605 1.1442 4.9761
. . . .
N 59 59 59 59 59 59 43 43 58
Std.
4435 2485 2604 4833 4491 1531 7544 1.0210 8013
Dev . . . . . . . .
Total Mean 1.2723 1.1664 1.017 5983 2209 0168 8158 1.1333 5.0250
. . . .
N 119 119 119 119 119 119 93 93 117
Std.
4649 2697 1833 6070 4154 1136 8873 1.0331 8107
Dev . . . . . . . .
? 38
ýI
hol
W4
: ml z
O
H
z
z
0
z
W hol
a C
z
MýýI
!+I
V
z
Mý
O
a
Z,
r-,
0
G
C
rl, '
CJ
Cl
Ji
ü
c1
/J
4'1
_r
C
0
L
tý
C)
,o
C,
C)
i)
C)
C,
U
C)
C)
u,
C)
q
Ci :J
`.3 O
ýy w-lücüy
uý M X ...
ap
öv l
_ý
71
lei
-T
2 c
--
U_
' ,i
:a
fr
.Jdý .ü
33
+Pt 1-. 0C hi i
v.
r
f, -
0
AJ C
ý St
C3 J}S "3
c3
s si
J<J i' ßi li-
ý^ rr:.,, . .
rl
U
)`, ! 773 yâ raUVv:. G

^,;
, "-:
cw!
4 fin 0Jö50500J7 .Z
N
([31£S[I 's,43;1ý-ý. (r rtsn IY.ej7 mrtsn SE ! L: £Sn 11041. p-, 1; 'fýiSF[C? ' !iäUli[i ; jC -lSJ>3i: lE
SS31 y1[1 pk OS) ;Y :)WES 1tS)4 OS 01OIN ii[3I [MI-i U-
t "tgwos u ZI
([; im ump 1Ttn tivul 11VI' it um p :(9 19'. ;, £S7cll[ý s5ý1g1ý[;. tt F: S: `

.?souria? {li'. "N 1ULtt ON ION 11")Sino. jo i1Ui> U! q tL N-(I
Ivn5n'Imp jL>1ISE'i ump 1L'd")sn 11PI11 3tt,'. Ir

Lf[7: J71C>.
i ur
,':?
JOW q-)njN :?.mill PJi4"ýTýj :7.1i?
4n G* ON JULI IýIiflCS' CC6'OC7.
i3N `01
IrnStt U£:q jl'£lsn. t: £ty1 £:nSII ratzte', 1117

117 p'SS:a.3cYip
;: nW., ai[Dul 2: 3.; 1CZj ýdO[: I un RUIJ?. oj uaq
-;, 10111 O? lta pun
. - {j
'JIgr (L'nSln I jCL1Sn SC ([Ins'l UrIll S¬ICZIgOSd Fnah

S,5.-,)l £plt1ti 11(p. sS=Yl mue; Os olognj O1do -ê( of );qe UCX)q-
ýF:YkS(CWO 1 jrn: S1'i IuUl Etdt.St5.5L' CImS[t U VIII iSý[11.12y:! r ßr,ß-oi-, 4L'ß ji3i/. lJtzi:
,
'NN 11371AT OS tiS.?-^ oLI3P.C 'JS 3.IOV InO: i iOFI1 01 Cr 0335q .-i
. -ý;
(.0i1ä11115: 111 (0OSQi I01i 0100 Cl: U9 90 CP

týi"ýIj1lt9 0tOh
ý?3(D[S3 qii q1 -)Join Inli; ji: 2{ 11oul O ION ^_.

. iI[oc o 1ýIIp[ntDJ 130:41FU - cj
UOtfl r9"1150 U£a? i (1`nSn 'amp 1p, Ir ýL[[[: JZ9

?. JOtU O j4J 1[{1E=Zj ON
-^"JC118I1: niou1 ON rnpun 1.(711Y15tIO Ila) -
jJ{; týi>; J {01150 ¬iF: p, 110150 50 p'"1511 ilk: fl is uml l oqv SD'0a$P
5Sl i1Df31y QS SS.Yý ýIl3E OS :)Ii)j, ' nACi i'. t1i j0 a[q101 O )t. 11 -
-),s 11 fvtis ('1:[357:4 Sr fen'su

n uC£i, 3 ump S'Cl; l11 jai 1: ed I[1. jO sn. f:
:iso C;')7Dl'ý 171.3

sn 4',.m : %iurs os : aio fl l. ý:£id ate l7o U LI1 ipj - ;,
:;
[CJISF; :I4'LI1 (P.CIsie 10511 ILCIS11 O:rgI ITP. IP. t,: 13dA, kt
? r(1 T[ 5101h ,] ^3!ISLU 1l B.IMlk iI li)f £) \O dh 14011WISO -Z

.C
P 11SIl u1: lgl (10150 11041 1i: CCSn.se 41:1150 uc l (`3U10p ai i1fD: t aa%ajL'l<t4 070
cý D y rpj sS? ? D[irr.ý sa:1@ 01r-11?

I, 00(11 -Jpneua ýc -
-A"LLN3J32[ i?OA 7! `NH

--------------
'UOi]; Iodo- U:I Juo. y 3qj gonur .ü -s 110, `[lft"t(. Z,

.
s>IOiisynb 1111-I-j v .IOAISUI1 Ol X13 nOA 11111117 1iOdi1Y Si if "1SHd ßg1 tt[ pull P.0L 050141 lot,
:siup. '.[dUIOO. Äunlzl,u put! }o3S23d 71CC?
ij¬. ooxr j al os'.. 140; 3qui ut3'ý 'no: s. Ol Sahiddi°. >i[n u isow. jynjl
1.10:1 L; 'J[@{d, mmsu r 3£{1 l SS0ptrn i: [ LTduijs% suL'! JSunb OE1'1'1 v, JOOSUO osm1,4 '\ ß.9N5 tt;, f, so alp .U7AI)
.
I X31 013 111 n Soil 4111304 3[10.. 0.0Lj Pun -Slink'lawoO 1E3plLi3 'il£ pull ;3ml nu. 1 p ttO1 '4 Ol . pjYlOC(S i)yý
"Ifalarm SR9 peat )sr.îd
N
It
N
a
Z ix. una )uayca al ltxO)

atti Z racfrd .V2 S try
C ? I MT,ýýas trtsoci ý! 't i z uo{teuo uen oilgnýj
r i, I saaleazs,ý }O zqt!, Ect t.\J s auottd.j=.T.
c J: '. UP a! dO)d imm 7tI. L
I set is cr,; s ;it 1nopL o'd,,. kvou-j dto.i at rx! ýtLl.
pz,Jsr t2S s al CJ dj4, SýT(j Dý7t S[F£ Ii UiN
lUFWll aql 1"Im"G 551: EU) rt30+. SIuosaxI i IS1:. ý -mjl uod5) at{j 72ßi73 J1ü: 1 341 ý3 4I
. 'h('ý't1ýaCy
LU )iU i[%S: J 'SUi31[ Ii; l7 S, 17: °..
t UOi; v£J
-mrA51io) 1 WSS1D ;C UOiioBJSI? 1;S If1O. L 1110qC _{ST, S1i0iiti; Utt7 öu1 w)IIOJ mij,
. _,[sjt ua it u; v a-O;e tuo,. s! cp ýaa c , cv3i gtun t r. P.sJm. nesza tmi no+ : nqj ams aqr l is ld
a+3 J) DISTILL"_Li U Fra; cysýacios t tt _._

:31RZ: ùIur 1LIZ 1((C. ilt*i(
.
Sl C[---
p1YýLlüfý ".g3SBýST 'fit,. «. ,, rnb :.q ot spu: rot f Z---

, Joar1o UOtj$UCiittiii OA[t=''F? UP, iia( ()ý----
101 i: S,'A. SIL3.1L ' 61 ---
Sra ! 3[: dt+.:SC'ýC:.+,.,^dyDl 02 p3i[t;: F.niUS: }'Y Jq 01 -, pull gr-. --
iJM'3 S110:'t13U 5134 j-_- aM Wuäu!, tf10J e Srq L I-

iüýlji iJkS!.1 g2lk tl .t5. tet)ý. it} pur : sw qd ti?: j ui ---- WSCISny;T1aJe 011Fis:0C.1Ua 91---
,
51_ti ü 01 3ptt. 1. S3S.1711J4Lf0', S9 ',ýý"-, "- 01I! 41 doop t? `snolo, ^ iui S! T---
2pF: t3V3 `21,

id¬Oc-pnoSl Cj
^.
. rýddmoi SL ti'gi `JCtýt 5xy )? ti Cý-,, ".".. 1: '))f. I0. V o gt: Sf: i i; $5 ý--
Stt'ý. Fbk',El'F1 =3 p1 IT1 1111co %1-,uw-, 1 5; 3r(o glrs 5(a u. ii si co os ' Zl---
Aif. LRll; 7J0 ((ii. f; ( ý. -. ".""ý
3lttl x.;; 43 1S0LUff: 01 PUr ¬71?E?01173^pIsu1X :iV f, ý-"_- >aunp k401ý 1p iuraa )1i0gf: snou1l. ^ 5i ß1. ----
i7:'. 1tfgi: i7it. -. Y.L(S S3tt, Tx12a105 SS ý.°.. -. _ IT-1vt S°.mils S^ IIi`Ci '[Y. itT, 301 54. .. (w". --
^,ü1t: t:1C!\^ .'JYl 'TS3r.

' '3nsiuc 53=q A .o --- ssn(0 n1 tr. Tý1ýtucs 3q u R----
.
ipt}0W "o Ui'T 6'ß'-- S-Mil 0 WAN 11sulasun PUQlnJdloq sr 'L -
;
pat}sdug sr -isdäl )u} jdiun S33a.%,astxi $'t--- PD, U, J -22 S`¬ "r9--
>eipt wx, tip .m.du s mo -(r r i,io sr ----

läd gi.?id{7Si2d i; l? viss: u SR{4 97 ----- 3SiGpass0fddpss
qof tgänoioqt v swop
}3SÜf1 :1(dSP.:ý 1+ýdx ]cjF. }S :1j]t. 1d1T6:
1ow SE '¢ -- rMO: W. " Y;GUj puij of SPU)1 'Z-
.
t.'.'L'j -aml"Irt si -{ ---
--
. OL[M OUOOUIoS 512 jI a"'miE J' I
L
y un: iý ýýiz. I aaxücsa{y; n ßi: 7 itZLfl)J1S
Mio(Is ptm i;Ipl; c ,ja`.äisrP> .,., aNsu =: ;ism) tmgi 'z) i rswn 1e4.,%.taas fO.ý ra.\-':tWy 3I wow1Uis sUUJ
Oaiv:, ar (i, nucui' xvair) gl. 3funu oii^ U,)4t ',,.ipoo aq uF,a ino ll3 rsuus)s NO"_II ` idiumn
acs 7UDWZ11,4Will gir:tt rINIUS3p 1a zi:? e na( [; u;akoI Tuaw» 041 'ICO.T ul calJNEUIIu n wst>otp 3{d
u +eu?; as EJOVa . 3, ) '
pia. 01 Iddr
A', itsu imu io. Tuw irr t ssxispil, r"ir.. 3o aagmnu t0 Pug IPm no, (mojag
M
It
N
r
a I
r ,. ra cN aV rt' ,^. i tv n i. r, ev rv cc rn ýa
c5 - _
ý_ J
i J LJ J '.
"ml
"n -5
"¬ 1 G C+
ý ßz1 /
tr tlý
i .
Y .. Y'i ri'
J ý
^
f
U 1 J
J / w
ý .J J
G '
It
N
[^
/J
^
/J
-
SV N N fJ r-i N f'
G fi . ý-i
4-
:
t K
Nw
rI
ý
Y
ý.. ' r". . r.. r M. c^ ., lam
: r'" r
r
."-.
'J
,J!
V O
f tl
r,1
Yr L
r
c ý .. u
J
, J
3 ._ z 77 St
7 l
77,
J J i
S:: ýs 7 -A ' y X
z` w j z rj- .ra
T2
<
tf)
It
N
:J
'J
w, wý ,.;
J
T ^t Y ^t "Y "'ý "r T-
'1.
vI-
ý_
4' .:..: r. r'i ra (-I rV rd r9
5"
J
z_
.... ... ... --
_ , _.. ..,
lý
C N car r3 r. v rv N ýr N r+
--
C.
V
J s u
k ,
a Mu V
r w' ý -
ý'
N
r, 4 ('ý! rý
_zz
J
F
11 ; "y
In ( _l In
CJ ...
F-
z -
° i
r-t ri rv rc ýý r. t r1 N rl hl 1 CÌ N e`c NNr. rI n!
n Jiy
- .,... r+ .w
- "-- - r- -- -. . -. -- e- -- .... .r-
FJ
cä
P)
f'
U. -
_
OH
'J
s
z
nJ
CJy
n ý r.
H .t
ýc ýý
Z ." ý,
J
ý :f
r ýu t J- -J -
1 ". -
5z :f
rf
I1 T.
. ( 4
-
H ý+ C
V
L, pG
-- -
ý} -- - -- -- - --- -- ------
y ._
N
e- - r- r-
ý
i!
r ,rrr n ýn "n
77,
-a -- -r
V
'= n
äz
cli
N C': CSI r7 rq r Cl 14 C1.1 (`", rte' 14

..
J. f
V Y
U
fl
J F
il _
tZ,
-0 771
I
ä
4 G
'
V
0 ;5
.
00
,It
N
ý
J f f
)
Ty f
iii I ':
A ,ý. a N
J t j
-73
J
t3 E
t ... - '-' 41
,
C F
t J
r ^ ,Y
_ J3
y [
a t
42
J J
J
ý J '.ý _ý )
J Ji n a
ý 31! ~
1
tL .
-Tý
C*N
N
{ µý
ýW
jr
i ý.
5..
7 ä
1: ij
Ü
l
3 EJ
eS C! U
-t
V,
v :t
C
_
C 0 ?
x
W _
J_ T
Z: tn l
£j
C?
G '1
G
.J
7` V
L
ýJ
: Ii
O
kf)
N
W
w
hol
zO W
H
Cow)
H z
A w A z
z C z O
W ýI
N
a
a z
H
W
-
a
hol
N
C3
C)
G
C>
CC
U
C)
C}
/'.
C[I
=. n
CC
a, ýf
'y
C
C
sý..
1!
cS
ä C:
C)
G
!3
C)
CC
cý
ars
r.ý
C)_
"rs
6
m
J
C!
0.
an
Ö
cs
ü
C)
C->
C)
L+
C)
V+
J
u C)
f.i
1"+r
ue
C,
v+9 D
H
C)
m
a
C3
C3
r
rJ rý
ui
!
Jt CS
'N.
Ö
J
J -C Ü
CA
N
tt')
N
0i
In C
ý -
rY
E ßt. "1 ü C `
' v) . .
jam
Z. rq "Z T-s c4
Cl5
,ý
- V)
J -- iv N cv rt N ^1 N CÌ fv
Gv
Cü sf
Z? v.
Y p
p ýJ
C G
ü; -W
ýV
-J
y Q
Q ~ ti
C
C J
V N
c en = r ý? G
= `s Ü J
yzLz _
rý cà N r5 rý
._c
C
r Z5
Ö G r
u 7 Cif'. - "¢J u J J -
` ,i.
^p
3
.ý tV cv f-t N Cv h7
yr vc
^
`
p :? N tV Kti i`7 ! ti tj rv cv ri r i ri
_) -
ne 6
. üv C) 0 C) Q
Ls ý ' v:
Fi ý' CW
L` sue., Oý
ILI
Rr F
v
Li v A a
y O O C O -_ a i G 7
`J lì
IDr 1` .-
t^ >e C^ Vt '0 ice- CC C)
tom! -
,.. . -- .:
M
N
i
i
,I
ýý +n ýr+ rn n +n ýn n. .rs .n .r, wn vi vt
C,
'w ^+ N <'4 AE '- C'3 L'4' CN

. ißt
n
V
T
cri,
Jr°
Üý ýl
ýý
-0
JZ ,
li - ii
ci >
fý ýý
vp
ca'a
ý:
a J
-'a 4
i
L'3
V
9
a
v
[1
an
C, `
v=0
:J
o
q
4?
C
J
CJ
i
ti'E
cJ
f C
y {ý =S
,. G yý :l-
0
ß 6'pcý.
i
_l
v
't
U
_
1
0U
V '3
II
I
N
i
1.1
- -J
V
rY
c _ c r
fi G
7s
a iä
C^x t"I fl C'1 fM en en
h
f'9 S'ýl
r-0ý
OL ra tv â fv N h3 N N ell
V.
L2 }
1+
ij
r
-° <z ö_
ýa z
5z
sý -
GQr 'C' ý7 c
.... -. . .,..
Nvf
rt ", t'1 of rn cn M ti
v
ü
cr CV c'ý c: fV NNMN (V N
0s
ll
i- `
y y.
V
V
T J
U C7 C: Cn O O O O O O
"-- <Q
r
a }
3_
ý J
O
^ O N ý
< r ' r.
ý ý ü ý v L
ý U fJ
ý
_
ü G
n GZ
rTj' O r" r-ü ri
u Ei
;E
Ö
Q
_
47 £
O _
- Cp
N = R Jy N ON
L ý- ; O ý.
VV _
G r= = O y
vt. O elü en . , '.s - CC ýn V uO
O r0 v> : = Y. vy "C Cr
Gr ,_ '_'-[ ",7
cr G9 G
z. L7 öZ
C6 yý >, O Ö A
C, ýLl C ''ý 'ýcý y 'ý =fl dpr
ss T
W a_ 0
z Cl- = C7 c >o F rc cc o
70 w
^
Ü, Ny
w<
wl
tn
Cl
lý' J
I% aý. cri PV fßß N <ýa N Cà , ^'i

, r.. .:
'. 1 E
Cl Cl CD
F^ 0 ti `ý
C 'ý hs
'ý _
r. r = a. y
UT TI
te -- _
" i"... : ! /ý -..
v-
., v. . ý,. .. ., ý r ., .,.
i n.. m .. ..:
\O
tr)
N
c
0
ci
ä
c
ä
E
f ý,- ("i ý us
ýn
k
v (N N wJ
' ý'Y t^. rc r. cfl f'1 r M M f^ ] ei

w r't C? f'^ý n rý r, r']
zG
s Cý tt CJ CV N C-a N N rJ H Ct hk Ný
w: .. cý ., c-f fý CJ n:. N
U
f J
5g 'r --
O Q^
U O.T
P.. Cv cV N
C :ý
U
C C? 0 O O CS Ci O Cl 0 O OO 0' O O O 0 Q 00
4) V
V
V
Z p'
J O
- Q P ;ü-H C>
C
JL
Qä }
Q reJ.
mm.. C= rJ - '.ý
ors
_._ x
`ý f L3 >
01 _7 .
rJ .w J
ý Y
Ca L - Cf-. ý C
S3 'ý' iJ gyp
ý [.
C `
C_jJ ý°° Vl ý
9 a
ma ä x ý:
r Ja V zUZ V '16 C+ Q - U 'H
71 ý U p _ C
[; L
ýJ
'r] L `ý L ü w i
Ll . T U! 4 C
, +V
!. v J `
ýC II
J , y
C7 c -' e5 r c
0 c
vn is rj Ä ýe n
te
b c -a .3'ae a
`ý,
ý) w' Tvj `^'- j '° T - r 3 E
1ý
x m Ä 'N . «.. ...
!
N
N
lA
ID V^ c3 +ý v 4ý t3 v? '.0 i7
v, '- v-y v-; vý v'i V1 vs vs +n. +n ut

Ö
E
C'y. M. ^'7 ! "1 ý'i L'"s YS 2ý? ! "S M M M

I
{W C{ NN f`Y i`! N fti tV N N (`t

r.
v X
L r
cw n
ýc
V
V
j.
N 3
ZE.
ip Y
0
^3
, G ..
es
0. C+
:a _ nom,
-
u J Lý
Cj. G C.:i TES _ g. ^J
=0 is x
^'ý - - -
00
yý t 'O n :SP= j
01
uI i)i U
: JS 'j iu `XU
.. 4O tiSi (
. J: t,11vu 'tf+i/ wot u seiq
?rrýrý!;,s??.
11;:>1;., 107 P sa; taw "'i '9 j.. -..
to; ,, q ups e, I _.
t iE<lcý d. ' .--

. -. _
=':
'.??ln! ?IF% Stij ¶UL DUi iT ftý; tl w¬,
S'elpF mau ?»,, da -: lUU) r Il 1.$ßi Si °c.....,, ^
.r: ..: ýä, '_

qo! a: >i'tiJ oq< i wup E_..
Iii. 4: 111lu,i q't`r' ('1 Sf3u. j
,.. .ýý, _
1OUO
pw
;"` jg c1zý"7 C goy q' - ;l
-"o s pia:
jaquinu 3: nq3 üogI `, dlrepp3P. i'ila was :i` oI jaAlwoq J! -#iEýis: 3YZ jS k! q! 0) 3x" ztI" I
q, nqmnu swqv ilI `, kpo(sw rte tir. 5, no. {. i'eli aa.ý ýe,{y.iac as i. u.tiP Qwa "A MUa7_,
,
sit v ,C 01 lugxj aqIa CI Y fiä. wow sxaq oS .: d neon n as
ýcqü t i! it
gnan .: no cA it r ;- :¬ _a Wo ivy s a; tf { ta.; sja la*ýaitma a pug fH.i, npA o1., ý1
.: .:. , :,
O\
N
SZ U
L, i`: ý". ý Y"'4 y WS ý: f< nSfl (_ 7t'. ý: ý: äj I1'. ß: q

ý..:? ý. ... -;:: r_... 4 i>'i( "f ..;,
J.. r.: l
..
tS: 7 ä79
S ,.> 'Lý';i'F`ý ý< ý; J:..: l; S n. _,; s;iý s-ý7 ;! 'dý. . _., -Y *.' fl
_. ,-ý.. , ..
rýý->;,{
.mod ?'c rxr_,1 :;ay-{ do 1)"" o; :1-ß:e try-
ý. -);,0,5 -.;
.. z- .,c. r-" v:. I
CC' ON M? Z iýý, 4 S='F: i"]ý. il ilk dÄ"%ý -1
k. > "; :.°; i'! m'C c aýd; ý cs!?

14, i .... Z ":-Y. ,. ý..,.
,
03
t, I3`s 7Iy,
w ° °
p
j'c.. J, Pi""f.: J
Kviý i-...
ýa, -. ý-.. ý ý "ýj ý '. 4 . w
..... t : 'ý :i ýv". xiý: - _.. -4ý ", I_..
_«- ---ý. -<ä:..
tai i%incsq7' I: i
n.., -'ri
CD
N
c, O t
7
6 ýC
L( f
"C
VJ
.. " ý. S
F
r
r- `
fk 1
C v.. y"1 CM CM CM
..
3 '.::
K ) ý C NY
ra .a' .. r
Y
C-J3
cli (It
ja
C
ý> ý
ý
4
I t ( Ov ý
J } 1. 'ý
ýrß ?I
,. - f w
f> E1 {J AG
E rz 7G
ý ý' xaE v
ä
,
C Sr
ti. C }ü U
YL^
C va ü
Q !
.ý T
s C
il j
r4 rý
r
Y_ _
ýFk .
L
`ý :Y'
fj
ä __
L 'k C13 4. i
:ý r v_
+.s -a
e,i ä v
r
rrq L G
ýý GL !
} iJ
L`: _t
G
p'ý rJ
C, > Ü
%" x
\lo
N
ýýý..
GZ
C_
t-ý,
ýr
-C
ýýý
c.
y, z
c"
; w.
'r
c
U -'
r- -n
#ýw
t :J
J`!
C)
,-r
a
0
rL
ü
ýzp
cý ^r.
Z;
C)
. yý
rn
L 2 1
ý. ü J
Cý' >T
a ö
0 x
V W;
J-
t ,. i- L
<J
i,. "ö c ý
.- .a
Ct
G L' ö
O Y;'
u' o J
b
Ü
Ü= rtix
CP v r
a v
; `ß r. j. ... ý. .... ý..ý ý..r .....
N
N

Sexual Harrasment Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sexual Harrasment Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Extending a Model of Sexual Harassment in

Thesis submitted to the University of Surrey in partial fulfilment for the

Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

© Angela Antonatos 2003

antecedents of sexual harassment as a whole, setting aside the examination of

(gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention and sexual coercion) although

variety of behaviours involved within these.

predicting responses or outcomes of harassment, and (f) to investigate gender

and attitudes, and unwanted sexual attention was predicted by agreeableness.

Experiencing harassment was a function of organisational tolerance and personality

1.2 DIFFICULTIES ASSOCIATED WITH OBTAINING ORGANISATIONAL ACCESS IN THE

1.3 SYNOPSIS OF CHAPTERS 13

THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND HYPOTHESES OF CURRENT

2.6 THEORETICAL EXPLANATIONS FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT ?2

2.7 SEXUAL HARASSMENT PROCLIVITIES AND THE PERSON/SITUATION INTERACTION

2.9 THE PROPOSED STUDY 29

2.9.1 Perpetrator Model 32

2.9.2 Victim Model 32

OCCUPATIONAL CULTURE CHARACTERISTICS THAT FOSTER

SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE POLICE AND ACADEMIA 38

3.2 OVERVIEW OF THE CONCEPT OF OCCUPATIONAL CULTURE 38

3.3 ASPECTS OF POLICE OCCUPATIONAL CULTURE 41

3.4 ASPECTS OF ACADEMIC OCCUPATIONAL CULTURE 45

3.5 COMPARING SEXUAL HARASSMENT BETWEEN A POLICE FORCE AND AN ACADEMIC

4.2 THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE METHODOLOGIES

4.4 Focus GROUPS 52

4.6 QUALITATIVE METHODS UTILISED BY THE PRESENT RESEARCH 61

4.7 ET}IICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES 63

RESULTS OF STUDY ONE 70

5.2.1 Sompl e Characteristics 71

5.2.5 Analysis of Outcome Model 103

5.3 RESULTS 110

5.3.2 Victim Model 110

5.3.3 Outcomes Model 111

RESULTS OF STUDY TWO 116

6.1 INTRODUCTION 116

6.2 ANALYSIS 117

6.2.1 Sample Characteristics 117

6.2.2 Scale Correlations' 125

6.2.3 Analv'sis of Perpetrator Model 131

6.2.5 Analysis of Outcome Model

6.3 RESULTS 148

6.3.2 Victim Model 148

PROFILING TWO DISTINCT ORGANISATIONS 152

7.1 INTRODUCTION 152

7.2 COMPARING INCIDENCE RATES ACROSS THE TWO SAMPLES 153

7.4 DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO SAMPLES 159

7.5 COMPARING OTHER SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS BETWEEN THE TWO

7.6 CONCLUSION 169

WHEN IS IT OK AND WHEN IS IT NOT: A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF

SEXUAL HARASSMENT WITH AN ACADEMIC SAMPLE 172

8.1 INTRODUCTION 172

8.2 RESULTS 172

8.2.1 Female Focus Group 175

8.3 CONCLUSION 188

9.2 MAIN FINDINGS

9.2.1. Perpetrator models .................................................................................. 189

9.2.2 Victim models 193

9.2.3 Outcome models 197

9.4.1 LIMITATIONS OF THE PRESENT RESEARCH 203

9.4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 206

9.6 CONCLUDING COMMENTS 211

Table 1:Police organisation participants 53

Figure 1: The Fitzgerald model of sexual harassment 27